Lord Roberts of Llandudno

The Reverend John Roger Roberts, having been created Baron Roberts of Llandudno, of Llandudno in the County of Gwynedd, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Hooson and the Lord Livsey of Talgarth.

Lord Rana

Diljit Singh Rana, Esquire, MBE, having been created Baron Rana, of Malone in the County of Antrim, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Alderdice and the Lord Dholakia.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, before business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I shall be undertaking a ministerial visit to Bournemouth on 2 July? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Aurora Space Exploration Programme

Lord Tanlaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What will be the consequences for space science education and space-related industries if the subscription to the European Space Agency's Aurora/Inspiration programme is not funded in full by June 2005.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the European Space Agency's Inspirations/Aurora programme is still being defined. There is a great deal of pressure on space budgets across Europe. Work has already taken place to turn ESA's aspirations into a realistic programme based on robotic exploration. Such a programme is more likely to be affordable. If not, timescales will be lengthened with inevitable consequences for space science education and space-related industries.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, while giving the customary thanks to the Minister for his reply, which I take to be a "no", I wonder whether there will be thanks from the teachers of planetary sciences or from space industrialists when they learn that we shall appear to have no part in the inspirational project Aurora, which is the search for life elsewhere in the solar system and beyond.
	The Minister's reply was convoluted and does not give us the reassurance required. As I understand it, funds have to be put aside in this current review in order to pay the full subscription in June 2005. We have been confined to 20 years of being terrestrial spectators in a game that will be played on another planet with equipment supplied by our competitors in Europe. Before the Minister leaves the political arena for the joust of the retail trade, I wonder whether a legacy could be left by applying to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to re-establish funds for this subscription.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I have been too long away from the retail trade. I thought my answer was a "yes" and not a "no". Clearly, political life is beginning to affect the clarity of my replies.
	The Aurora programme will be funded in two ways; partly by the mandatory programme, to which we give a percentage of GDP, and partly through optional payments, which we will also make. We are looking at the contribution we will make. That will depend of course on how the programme turns out. We are very keen that it should focus on robotic exploration and not manned exploration and are extremely keen to take part in the programme.

Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has said, is the follow-up to Beagle 2 at risk if we do not participate in the Aurora programme?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we want the Aurora programme to focus more clearly on robotic exploration and to build on both the science and the instrumentation work done for Beagle 2. That is why we are keen to ensure it heads in that direction.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will clarify one further point. The Aurora programme is in two parts—part robotic and part involving astronauts. How can young people be enthusiastic about robotic exploration in the next 20 years when they see that there will be Italian, German or French astronauts' boots on the Moon or on another planet?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as Beagle 2 demonstrated very clearly, it is possible for people to be enthused by planetary exploration when it is robotic, not manned, exploration. That came through clearly. The really exciting part is the planetary exploration which is taking place. People, including many young people, are beginning to realise that manned space exploration is probably not the way forward at this stage.

Chechnya

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy towards the current conflict in Chechnya and the effect which this has on the population.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Chechen conflict has had a devastating effect. Tens of thousands of people have been killed or are missing. We recognise the genuine security problems Russia faces. We have repeatedly condemned terrorist attacks across Russia, including the recent raids into Ingushetia. We continue to be concerned by reports of human rights abuses in Chechnya by federal, local and separatist forces.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I welcome the general tone of the noble Baroness's reply. However, does she agree that there is no conceivable military solution? Therefore, will the Government commit themselves to starting a political dialogue which, with luck, may lead to negotiations? Is it not the case that we need a peace process to begin somewhere?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that a genuine, open political process is exactly what is needed, as well as reconciliation within that process. I hope that he will be heartened by the news that my honourable friend Bill Rammell, the FCO Minister, raised that very point in his discussions with senior Russian officials in Moscow in April.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. What is Her Majesty's Government's response to the finding of Human Rights Watch that human rights abuses, which previously occurred almost exclusively in Chechnya, are now increasingly spreading across the border?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are extremely worried about the recent incursion into Ingushetia. That shows the fragility of the security situation there. Further attacks by rebels cannot be ruled out. There is likely to be further instability leading up to the Chechen presidential election at the end of August. So the whole Caucasus area is very fragile.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that if a political solution is necessary, there are dangers in the forthcoming presidential election—so-called—due to take place at the end of August in Chechnya, in that that election is based upon a flawed referendum approving a flawed constitution?
	Does the Minister not agree that if the Russians try to manipulate the result they want in that election, the result will be to draw more young people into the arms of extremists and increase the forces of global terrorism?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we very much hope that elections will not bring about the result that my noble friend referred to. We recognise his great experience in the matter, as his work in the Council of Europe shows. The Government see the new Chechen presidential elections planned for August as a fresh opportunity to show commitment to democratic principles, to build up the political process and to aid efforts to bring stability to the republic. So we see those elections as a new opportunity, which I hope will be grasped.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the findings of the Amnesty International report published last week that Russian security forces are continuing to rape, kill, torture and "disappear" civilians in Chechnya? If so, will she comment on the recommendations made by Amnesty International to the member states of the Council of Europe? Does she also agree that Russia is violating the December 1994 OSCE code of conduct on security? What measures will the Government take to bring that home to the Russian authorities?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we very much welcome Amnesty International's recent report and are aware of the very serious and appalling issues of human rights abuses it raises. On the noble Lord's point about bringing pressure to bear on Moscow, we have made very clear the UK's concerns over continuing reports of human rights abuses in Chechnya and North Caucasus; we have done so bilaterally, with the EU and of course through our colleagues on the Council of Europe. The FCO Minister, Bill Rammell, raised those concerns also with senior Russian officials during his visit in April.
	The noble Lord raised the issue of the OSCE. I should like to tell him that we want to see a re-establishment of a permanent OSCE presence in Chechnya, but that will not be possible without the agreement of the Russian authorities, as he well knows.

Lord Rea: My Lords, owning to the length of the conflict—nearly 10 years—and the scale of the human rights abuses in Chechnya, should not this case be raised at the United Nations Security Council? I know that this is officially an internal Russian matter, but it has been going on for so long and the abuses have been so severe as to constitute an international cause of concern.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have raised our concerns at the UN. Along with the European Union, we have raised Chechnya at the UN Commission on Human Rights. However, as my noble friend will know, at this year's Commission on Human Rights, Russia blocked our attempts to push for a resolution.

Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, does the Minister remember that, after the end of the first Chechen war, the Russians, as a commitment on entrance to the Council of Europe, promised to settle any future disagreements peacefully—a promise that they subsequently brutally ignored? With all respect to the Minister's claims that Her Majesty's Government have been vigorous in condemning human rights in Chechnya committed by the Russian Federation, they have been remarkably muted. Why is that? Is it because trade is more important than principle?

Baroness Crawley: No, my Lords, I disagree entirely with the noble Lord. We raise serious issues of human rights abuses in Chechnya with our Russian counterparts all the time at ministerial and senior official level. So I refute his accusation.

Elections: All-postal Ballots

Earl Attlee: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they made a Written Statement on 21 June (WS 46–48) on the recent all-postal ballot pilots.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, to keep the House informed. The all-postal pilot elections were held on 10 June. We had previously made a Statement on the progress of the elections in the pilot regions for the European parliamentary and local elections on 27 May 2004. We felt it was important to follow that up with a further Statement following the completion of the elections.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but can he explain why the work of the Electoral Commission has been pre-empted and undermined?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it has not in any way been pre-empted or undermined. The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to report on the electoral pilots in the four regions and it will do so by 13 September or before.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, surely the Government have committed themselves to all-postal voting in the regional elections before the Electoral Commission has evaluated the pilots. That was the point that my noble friend was making. Why on earth have they pre-empted the work of the Electoral Commission and committed themselves in that way before the evaluation?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Earl's Question was slightly Delphic. The position is clear. The Government's position is that in principle it is desirable to hold the regional referendums on an all-postal basis, as has been the view of the Electoral Commission to date. The Government have also made clear that the Electoral Commission is evaluating the all-postal pilots and that if it concludes that it is unsafe to proceed with all-postal voting, the Government will be prepared to recommend to Parliament that it should amend the approach to the referendums. But if there is to be an option for regional referendums on an all-postal basis by the required date in November, those orders must be laid now to allow the information leaflets for the public to be published and to allow a 10-week period for campaigning.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Government expedite arrangements for individual registration to replace household registration, which is seen as an important way to make all-postal ballots less subject to fraud and deceit?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, our position on this is as previously stated. We are well aware of the advice of the Electoral Commission that, in time, it would be desirable to move to individual voter registration. The Government are keeping that under review.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is it not true that the Electoral Commission was set up by the Government? It seems that it is not doing what the Government wanted it to do. First, the Government completely ignored its suggestion that there should be only two all-postal ballots in the recent election, as opposed to four. Now they are more or less disregarding everything that the Electoral Commission is doing. Why not just abolish it?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot think how the noble Baroness comes to make that assertion. The Electoral Commission was established as a result of an Act of Parliament passed by this House and another place for the very good reason that it is extremely important that there is a body of standing and independence able to advise on electoral matters. The key issue, which we have discussed almost ad nauseam, is that on some matters the Electoral Commission makes recommendations. It is then the job of this House and another place to take a decision on those matters. On the issue of the four regional pilots, we were of the view—and eventually this House concurred—that it was desirable to undertake four regional pilots. I am very glad that we did so, given the success of that process.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the opening sentence of his original Answer was anything but Delphic? He said that the reason for such Statements was, "to keep the House informed". Is he further aware that in Tuesday's Hansard, there were three Written Statements, the first two of which were duplicates, informing the House of items of which we had already been made aware in the Green Minute?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, one is damned if one does and damned if one does not on such issues. I stand four-square behind my Answer. The issue of electoral pilots was of considerable interest to the House and it was absolutely right and proper that, as soon as we had clear results from the returning officers, that information was put before the House. I have not yet been asked this, but the headline figure in those four regional pilots was that the vote doubled as a consequence of the all-postal ballots.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, which is more important: that we have a referendum to decide whether to have regional government in England; or that we have another experiment in postal voting?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord posits a false dichotomy. It is important that we give the public the opportunity to decide whether they want regional government in this country. I am amazed to receive any indication from members of that party that they think that that is an undesirable choice. In so doing, those processes must be carried out with the standards and integrity in electoral matters of which this country is proud.

Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Members on the other side are advancing the novel proposition that the Government are somehow guilty of something unexpressed and rather inchoate: giving too much information to the House too early? Will the Government firmly reject that proposition? Will my noble friend also reject the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, which is that if you set up an independent commission and it does not do what you want, you disband it? I hope that my noble friend will reject that too.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I have no difficulty in concurring with my noble friend on both points. In my experience, it is right that the Government give an account to the House. It is also my experience that sometimes one has to tell the House the same thing more than once before it is necessarily fully heard.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, if the Government are happy to pre-empt the report of the Electoral Commission, will the Minister say why they are also happy to pre-empt the investigations currently under way across all four regions for fraud?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is utterly not so on both counts. How can such statements be made in that way? What I said quite clearly in that respect was that, as is well known, the Government take the view that, in principle, it is desirable that the regional referendums are conducted on an all-postal basis. That is for good reason, because they have doubled the turnout in the recent elections. That matters to any of us who are democrats at heart. We also said that we would not proceed if there was a clear recommendation that it was unsafe to do so. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the relevant extracts from Hansard in that respect.
	As for allegations of fraud and impropriety, the Government's position is that we want the police to investigate any serious allegations of impropriety with the utmost vigour and vigilance. I also draw the noble Baroness's attention to the statement by Sir Howard Bernstein, the regional returning officer for the north-west. He said that research shows that,
	"the scale of allegations of fraud and malpractice is broadly similar to previous years. While the nature of the allegations has changed this year, the scale has not increased—if anything, it has lessened".
	That is not the Government's statement; it is the statement of the regional returning officer for the north-west and of the Greater Manchester Police. I am further told that the other three regional returning officers concur with that perspective.

Lord Woolmer of Leeds: My Lords, is it not extraordinary that no one on the Benches Opposite has welcomed the fact that over 3 million more people voted at those elections? Is that not something to be warmly welcomed on all sides? Does the Minister recognise that there is support for individual voter registration on all sides of the House? That step will be an additional and welcome safeguard against the understandable fears and concerns about possible fraud. That must be said in the context of the very welcome, enormous increase in voters. That must be good for democracy.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord's second point is correct. As to his first point, I recollect—because we addressed this matter on several occasions when we were debating electoral pilots—that I chanced my arm slightly and suggested that if one was optimistic, there could be as many as 2 million extra people voting from the 14 million electors in those four regions. The figure was nearly 3 million. The increase in votes cast in the European elections in 2004 in those four regions, compared to the votes cast in 1999, was over 100 per cent more. We must take this issue seriously if we are concerned about the democratic health of our society, just as we must take seriously any allegations or reality of electoral malpractice, and we must seek to eradicate that at the same time.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I certainly welcome the increase in the number of people who voted, particularly those who voted for me. I declare that I was a candidate, an agent and a sub-agent in those elections. Does the Minister understand that there were a number of different reasons why turn-out increased, and that turn-out increased throughout the country? It even increased in places that did not hold postal voting pilots, but not quite as much in those places. Therefore, he cannot attribute all the increase, or even attribute a majority of the increase, to postal voting.
	Is it not time that the Government stopped spinning and started listening to what happened in those elections? It was an administrative and democratic shambles in many places. If he will not listen to people like me, perhaps he will listen to the Asian lady voter in Keighley in Bradford, West Yorkshire, who said after the elections, "Every year, my husband tells me how to vote, and every year I go to the polling station and vote for who I want to vote for, not for who my husband tells me to vote for. That has now changed".

Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, we will listen. That is what any responsible government would do. As to the noble Lord's first point, in terms of the increase in voting generally, the increase in voting outside the four regions was roughly 50 per cent; the increase in the four pilot regions was over 100 per cent. If you net the one off the other, you get a picture of about a 50 per cent increase in voting in the four pilot regions, discounting other factors that boosted the turn-out nationally. That is similar to the previous experience on the increase in turnout attributed to postal voting in the 100 or so pilots that have taken place in local government.
	As to the Asian lady, we should all be concerned at that situation. However, we should be further concerned that her plight has been worsened by the insistence of this House, against the advice of the Government and the Electoral Commission, that the postal ballot had to be witnessed by someone. She had to get her cross on her ballot witnessed, most probably by a member of her family.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What benefits there will be for those undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment, and for the children born as a result, in the proposed changes to the regulatory framework of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

Lord Warner: My Lords, the review of the Department of Health arm's-length bodies is still under way. An announcement on the implications for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and other bodies will be made before the summer Recess. The Government are committed to ensuring that patients will continue to receive safe, high quality, assisted reproduction treatment services. That remains a key priority.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that the human embryo has special moral status, and that therefore the regulation of its use in treatment and in research must be kept together?

Lord Warner: My Lords, at the moment we are looking at arm's-length bodies overall. We have also announced that there will be a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. We have taken no action so far that in any way suggests that we are deviating from the line suggested by the right reverend Prelate.

Iran: Uranium Enrichment

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind the House that I chair the British Committee for Iran Freedom.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government, what is their response to the decision of the Iranian Government to revoke their pledge of October 2003 to freeze uranium enrichment work.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are disturbed by Iran's announcement of its intention to resume the manufacture and assembly of centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and urge Iran to reverse its decision.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Is it not clear that the unelected leaders of the theocratic Iranian regime have deliberately lied to our Government and to other governments about their nuclear weapons programme, and that there is a gap wider than the Persian Gulf between what the mullahs say and what they actually do? Will the Government now ask the International Atomic Energy Agency to report Iran's defiance of its treaty obligations to the UN Security Council?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, referral to the UN Security Council is always a mechanism available to the IAEA, but there are no plans to do so at present. I understand the strength of my noble friend's feeling on this important issue. However, I do not believe that the suggestion of referral is the best way forward. The process of constructive engagement with Iran has benefited the international community. We now have a much clearer idea of the extent of Iran's nuclear programme. It remains more appropriate to continue to engage with Iran in the context of the IAEA than to provoke a confrontation, when the prospects for action at the Security Council are unclear to say the least.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, what light can the Minister shed on the recent reports that nuclear materials leaked at the new Tehran International Airport, that it was closed one day after the formal opening, and that those materials had been flown in from North Korea? Does she place any credibility on the statements by the Iranian authorities that there is no connection between the development of the domestic nuclear programme and the desire for nuclear weapons?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, in answer to the first point, I understand that the new Tehran airport was closed within hours of its opening as a result of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps claiming that the involvement of western companies in the operation of the airport was a threat to national security. I am not aware of any basis for the report that the noble Lord has just given, but I will look into it and write to him.
	On the issue of credibility, the noble Lord will know that the director-general of the IAEA, Mohamed El Baradei, said at the last board meeting that it is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within the next few months.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that Iran's decision to resume manufacturing centrifuge components and enriching uranium indicates that it is on the strategic path to developing a nuclear weapons capability, and that the threat by some Iranian leaders to denounce the non-proliferation treaty is confirmation of that intention? Would the noble Baroness not agree that while, obviously, constructive dialogue is better than confrontation, there comes a point when this matter is so serious that it is above Mr El Baradei's pay grade? If she is not willing to refer to the Security Council, does she have some other fallback plan in mind?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I do not agree that this decision shows that Iran is inevitably on the path to developing nuclear weapons. However, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the decision of the Iranian Government to resume uranium enrichment activity sends out all the wrong signals to the international community, affecting its confidence. We want that decision reversed. While continuing our policy of constructive engagement, we fully support the highly critical resolution of the IAEA and Mr El Baradei.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does not the Minister feel that if we are to get a satisfactory outcome to this very tangled tale, we will probably need more sticks and more carrots before we get through? Are the Government not thinking about both more sticks and more carrots? Does the Minister not agree that one of the problems is that the threshold of referral from the IAEA to the Security Council is too difficult to cross because it requires an actual breach of the non-proliferation treaty to be established? Would it not be far better if the Security Council could be brought in on these discussions in a less confrontational way?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will know, we are in a process with the IAEA in which Mr El Baradei wants to see action and to see the Iranians keep their side of the bargain in the next few months.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, the thought of the mullahs' regime having control of nuclear weapons is terrifying. Will my noble friend consider using constructive dialogue to address the question of the committee that has been established in tribute to the martyrs of the global Islamic movement? That committee has announced a martyrdom operation and claims that 10,000 have been recruited to take up suicide bomber places in various parts of the region. Does she agree that in our constructive dialogue with Iran we should raise such questions? It is not just a threat to Israel, which is the target of the martyrdom operation, but to the whole region.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. We have long-standing concerns that Iran supports, for instance, Palestinian rejectionist and terrorist groups. We have made these concerns very clear to Iranian leaders.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what progress has been made on setting a deadline date by which inspectors have to be satisfied before referring the case to the United Nations? What assessment have Her Majesty's Government made of the new conservative parliament in Iran, and its readiness, supposedly, to co-operate on the nuclear issue?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I think that I answered the noble Baroness's first question in an earlier answer. We believe that satisfactory progress towards the desired result is more important than establishing artificial deadlines. However, I quoted director-general El Baradei of the IAEA, when he said in his introductory statement to the last board meeting in June:
	"It is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within the next few months, and provide the international community with the assurances it urgently seeks regarding Iran's nuclear activities".

Ipswich Market Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of the Lord Jenkin of Roding to three hours.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business of the House: Standing Order 47

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages on Monday 5 July.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATO Summit and Special European Council

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the NATO summit in Istanbul and also briefly report on the special European Council in Brussels last night.
	"I thank the new NATO Secretary General for his chairmanship of the NATO summit and the President and Prime Minister of Turkey for hosting it. I am placing copies of the summit declaration in the Library of the House.
	"We were joined in Istanbul by NATO's seven new members from central Europe. They bring a renewed perspective to the alliance. Their recent history of repression makes their attachment to security, freedom and democracy that much keener. We were also joined by NATO's partners: Russia, Ukraine, and others from across eastern Europe and central Asia.
	"We endorsed capabilities targets to ensure we make the best use of NATO forces. We supported the further reform of NATO's structures to adapt the alliance to the new threats we face. We agreed to end the NATO mission in Bosnia, SFOR, at the end of the year and committed to a successful handover to a European Union force.
	"However, the two main issues on the NATO agenda were Iraq and Afghanistan. The summit opened just as the new Iraqi Interim Government assumed full authority and sovereignty in Iraq.
	"Politically, Iraq now has a broad-based and representative Government; a timetable and a process for Iraq's first democratic elections; a new constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms and the rule of law; a devolved system of government—almost all towns now have municipal councils and those that have been elected are largely secular; and guaranteed protection of minority rights. This is in place of a dictatorship that brutalised the people and ransacked the country.
	"Economically, Iraq now has an open economy with an independent central bank; a real budgetary process; a new and stable currency. A start has been made to re-build Iraq's hugely damaged and underinvested-in infrastructure—a process which will now continue under the guidance of the new Iraqi Government. This is in place of an economy where a country rich in resources had, under Saddam, 60 per cent of its population dependent on food vouchers.
	"Britain can be proud, as a country, of the part we and in particular our magnificent Armed Forces played in bringing this about. We also express our deep condolences to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle and to all those who have lost their lives in this struggle.
	"We should pay tribute, too, to the many British public servants, policemen and women and volunteers, led so ably by David Richmond, the UK Special Representative, who played crucial roles in helping the Iraqi people rebuild their lives, doing so under difficult and stressful conditions. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously agreed that their extraordinary contribution should be recognised with the award of a special civilian medal.
	"But there is one overwhelming central challenge that remains in Iraq: security. Former Saddam supporters and, increasingly, terrorists from outside of Iraq linked to Al'Qaeda see this progress in Iraq and its potential and hate all that it represents. They are therefore killing as many innocent people as they can, trying to destroy oil and power supplies and to create chaos, so that the path to stability and democracy for Iraq is blocked.
	"At the NATO summit in Istanbul, the Iraqi Government requested NATO's help with the training of the new Iraqi security forces. NATO agreed it. The crucial task is now to put in place the training, leadership and equipment to give Iraqi police, civil defence and armed forces the capability to take on the terrorists and beat them.
	"The determination of the new Iraqi Government is inspirational. But the challenge, especially around Baghdad, is formidable. None the less, I hope by the end of July the Iraqi Government and the multinational force will agree and publish plans to ensure, over time, that this capability exists.
	"There is nothing more important to the stability of Iraq or that of the wider region. Britain, the United States and the rest of the former coalition will remain dedicated to helping the Iraqi people in this task. In addition, NATO as a whole will urgently consider further proposals to support the nascent Iraqi security institutions in response to Prime Minister Allawi's request.
	"In respect of Afghanistan, President Karzai gave a typically forceful presentation both on the progress made in that country over the last two years and on the huge challenges that remain to be overcome. President Karzai said that over 5 million Afghans have now registered to vote in the September elections: 3.5 million refugees have now returned to Afghanistan; and 3 million girls are in school. Living standards are rising and the economy is growing by 20 per cent a year.
	"But, again, terrorists, with the same intent as in Iraq, stand in the way. NATO agreed to expand ISAF's role outside Kabul, with provincial reconstruction teams to help build Afghan force capability. Some of those teams are already set up in the north. The UK is providing two. The next stage will be to establish similar teams in the rest of the country.
	"In addition, we agreed a package of support for the upcoming elections in Afghanistan, including a role for the NATO Response Force. Finally on Afghanistan, we now have an agreed process of stability in the command of ISAF for the years ahead. We have offered to provide the UK-led Allied Rapid Reaction Corps, one of NATO's high-readiness headquarters, to lead ISAF in 2006.
	"The role which NATO is playing in Afghanistan and the new role it is taking on in Iraq reflect the new security challenges we face. Our adversary is no longer the Soviet Union, but terrorism and unstable states, which deal in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the possibility of the two coming together.
	"Both Iraq and Afghanistan face the same struggle for democracy and freedom. Both were used as terrorist bases and both were horrific examples of repression organised and promoted by their governments while their people were deprived of even the most basic dignity and human rights. Both now have the hope of a new dawn but are confronted by the remnants of the past they seek to escape.
	"Let us be quite plain about what is at stake. If we succeed, the Iraqi and Afghan people prosper; their states become valued partners in the international community; and the propaganda of the terrorists that our purpose is to wage war on or dominate Muslims is exposed for the evil nonsense it is. Should we fail, those countries would sink back into degradation, threaten their neighbours and the world, and become again a haven for terrorism.
	"The terrorism we face is not confined now to any one continent, let alone any one country. From Saudi Arabia to the cities of Europe, it is there—active and planning. Since 11 September 2001 in New York we have known its potency. So what now happens in Iraq and Afghanistan affects us here, as it does every nation, supportive or not of the actions we have taken.
	"NATO's focus on these issues shows at least a start to understanding this threat and its implications. But I worry that our response is still not sufficient to the scale of the challenge we face. I repeat what I said at the NATO plenary session: this threat cannot be defeated by security means alone. It needs us to focus on the causes of it.
	"Progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue remains a vital strategic necessity; as does the recognition that our ultimate security lies in the spread of our values—freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The more we can assist in the development of these values in the wider Middle East, in partnership with reform-minded governments and people, the better our long-term prospects of defeating this threat will be.
	"But the battle is here and now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even for those who passionately disagreed with our decision to go to war, the issues are now clear, the side we should be on without doubt, and the cause manifestly one worth winning. Succeeding in it would be a fitting way to reinvigorate the trans-Atlantic alliance and heal its divisions.
	"Finally, on the way back from Istanbul, I attended a special European Council. It agreed the Portuguese Prime Minister as the new Commission President. He is an excellent choice: committed to economic reform, committed to the trans-Atlantic alliance and committed to a European Union of nation states. It was a good finale to a brilliant Irish presidency of Europe."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Perhaps I may say at the outset how much we welcome the appointment of Mr Barroso as the new Commission President, especially if, as is claimed, it marks a break from the outdated Franco-German centralising tendencies. We trust that his performance will match the promise. I also hope that, unlike the outgoing President, Mr Prodi, he will give full attention to EU affairs and not use Brussels as a platform for his own domestic political campaigns.
	On Iraq, I join the Prime Minister in sending our sincerest condolences to the family of Fusilier Gordon Gentle. He and his fellow soldiers serve in a just cause. Those who murdered him must be confronted with unflinching resolve. The best way to defeat them permanently is for Iraq to be established among the family of democratic nations and become a beacon for a new way forward in the Middle East. So I join the noble Baroness in welcoming wholeheartedly the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq and wish the Interim Government well in the considerable challenges that lie ahead.
	Security remains a critical issue in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Prime Minister said today that the Iraqi Government exercise political control over any operation, but that coalition forces would not respond to any inappropriate order. Practically, how are those statements to be reconciled by commanders on the ground?
	With the Recess only three weeks away, does the noble Baroness envisage any increase in British troop deployment before then? And will Parliament be recalled before any further significant deployment after the Recess begins? Can she also tell the House if there will be any troop deployment from non-NATO members, especially from Arab states?
	I welcome NATO's decision, despite the rather churlish attitude of France, to
	"offer assistance to the Government of Iraq with the training of its security forces".
	Can the noble Baroness tell us the likely numbers involved, including the UK contribution? What is being done to improve the security of those involved in reconstruction work in Iraq, including electricity and oil? Following the appearance of Saddam Hussein in court today, can the noble Baroness assure the House that a potential death penalty for mass murder will not prevent Britain agreeing to the unqualified transfer of General Ali and others to Iraq?
	The Statement referred to additional troops for Afghanistan. What, once again, is the UK contribution? Is it not deeply worrying that too many NATO countries have failed to take seriously enough the need for security in stabilising Afghanistan and hence the need for military resources? Is not a strong presence in Afghanistan the kind of operation in which a post-Cold War NATO must now come into its own?
	I therefore very much welcome the ongoing NATO commitment to enlargement. I noted paragraph 41 of the Istanbul communiqué stating the importance of the Black Sea to European security. Do the Government therefore understand Russian sensitivities in Moldova and Georgia? Does the noble Baroness know when it is likely that Russian troops will leave Moldova?
	At what point, in the view of the British Government, does the evolution of an EU military capability represent a threat to the future role of NATO?
	Does the noble Baroness join me in saluting President Bush's visionary speech on relations between the EU and Turkey? We on this side have long argued for the embracing of Turkey against foolish foot-dragging by other EU nations. Is it not essential that this great Muslim nation, a key NATO member and an established secular democracy, is treated with dignity and seriousness as an essential partner in building stability in eastern Europe and in the Middle East?
	Finally, the EU-US summit discussed Sudan. What specific action was agreed to avert tragedy in Darfur? And why is there no mention in any of these communiqués of the tragedy in Zimbabwe? There was time, quite rightly, for Sudan, but not for Zimbabwe. Can the noble Baroness shed any light on that decision? I raise this again because I know of the noble Baroness's interest in this region.
	Has she had an opportunity to look at the EU website on Zimbabwe? It reads, "Recent events—no news available", and goes on to state:
	"This page is still under construction. Sorry for the inconvenience".
	The destruction of Zimbabwe by Mugabe goes on and half a million exiles are suffering more than just inconvenience. Does not this pathetic website, which compares with 50 pages on EU relations with Bhutan, aptly show the utter weakness of the EU on Zimbabwe? So what is the Government's response to its failure to raise Zimbabwe in every forum—EU, US-EU and at the United Nations? Once again the opportunity was there last weekend and once again it was lost.

Lord McNally: My Lords, I share with both Front Benches in the expressions of grief at the death of Fusilier Gordon Gentle and of all British personnel who have given their lives in this conflict. At the close of the Statement the Prime Minister said:
	"Even for those who passionately disagreed with our decision to go to war, the issues are now clear, the side we should be on without doubt, and the cause manifestly one worth winning".
	I suppose that means Members on these Benches in particular, because we were passionately in disagreement about this war. We support the desire to see democracy and civil liberties in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but what still worries us is whether, both in the United States and in the mind of the Prime Minister, the lessons have been learnt and there is sufficient humility to ensure that the future is less error-ridden than the past.
	One has only to look at the piece by Bronwen Maddox in the Times today where she talks of the announcement of the handover of power in Iraq as a "stunt" which marked the moment that an alliance died:
	"It was a showy, historic moment, but one in which Nato had played no part. It was a decision taken quickly and secretly by the US and the Iraqi government, exactly the kind of feat that Nato cannot manage".
	That is the real worry about much of the tone of the Prime Minister's Statement. For Ernest Bevin and the other founding fathers of NATO, to see 26 European countries gathering in Istanbul, having come together without the major war that was feared after the Second World War, was an historic achievement. But it is worth the Prime Minister pondering the fact that Bevin and the other founding fathers did not build NATO in isolation. They put in place around it a whole framework of international co-operation and international law based on the Charter of Human Rights and on the United Nations.
	We hear much today, particularly from the new Right in the United States, of theories of a new imperialism and a new American century. Unless that is cleared out of the way and there is a return to co-operation through the international bodies we have created, many of the aspirations that were so eloquently put in Istanbul are doomed to failure.
	It is all very well to talk about Afghanistan and Iraq, but Afghanistan shows all the signs of a disastrous switch of attention that left the job half done in that country. One has to wonder whether there is the political will and the machinery in place to deliver what is needed. Turning to Iraq, one has to question whether free elections can be held without security and, indeed, whether they can be held without electricity, sewerage and water supplies. Some sense of normality must be restored. If the very fact of registering to vote can cause someone to be assassinated, it is hardly likely that there will be free and fair elections. Nor is it likely that there will be respect for an independent government if the United States retains in Iraq its largest embassy in the world. We have to look at this not only in terms of rhetoric, but also at the reality, and wonder whether there is the will to see it through.
	I turn to a practical matter. Given all these declarations, I wonder whether the comprehensive spending review, to be announced on 12 July, will take on board the new commitments. Will our Armed Forces have the resources to meet these extended commitments?
	I share with the noble Lord expressions of good will so far as Turkey is concerned, and for its ultimate membership of the EU. As for Israel/Palestine, to my mind the region is not just a vital strategic necessity, it is the core problem which must be addressed. One wonders whether the issue has now been put on the back burner until after the American presidential election, or whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans and proposals either on their own or in conjunction with the European Union to carry matters forward?
	Finally, on the EU itself, we of course welcome the appointment of Mr Barroso and we congratulate the Irish on what was a model presidency. All we ask now from the Prime Minister, and in particular the Chancellor downwards, is that we maintain a robust consistency in our European policy so that those who pay lip service to our membership of the EU, but nothing more, are faced down. We must have a government who really are going to lead in Europe and allow Europe to play the role it should in the wider security issues discussed in Istanbul.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House joins in the condolences which have been expressed this afternoon, and in the tributes to our Armed Forces.
	On the question of troop deployments put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, he may recall that the Secretary of State for Defence announced routine force level adjustments on 27 May and 17 June, bringing UK forces in Iraq up to 9,200. No other decision has been taken. With regard to non-NATO troops making a contribution in Iraq, a list is available of those countries currently contributing troops. However, I am not aware of any Arab states making specific troop contributions.
	On the issue of reconstruction and security, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that security has to be our number one concern, not only in respect of the workers on the ground who are engaged in working to reconstruct Iraq in partnership with the Iraqis themselves, but also in bringing normality to the lives of the people of Iraq, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It is also important to ensure that the essential infrastructure is protected. Noble Lords will be aware that some 74,000 Iraqis form part of the facilities protection force, in addition to those working as police officers patrolling the streets.
	As to our contribution in Afghanistan, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, there are currently 314 UK troops serving with ISAF in Kabul. Our contribution will increase by around 260 in the next few days when our PRTs in Mazar-e-Sharif and Maymanah and the forward support base in Mazar transfer to ISAF authority. But this will not increase the overall number of UK troops in Afghanistan. We expect HQ ARRC to be deployed to Afghanistan sometime in 2006, but it is too early to say how many troops will be involved in that.
	As to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on Moldova, there is a stand-off at present so we do not know when the Russians will pull out. On the wider issue, the NATO-Russia Council is a forum in which we can discuss common security concerns with Russia. This allows us to be aware of particular Russian sensitivities.
	On the issue of the EU and Turkey, the noble Lord will know that the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of the push for Turkey to join the European Union. This is because we believe it is important that we are seen to be much more inclusive in terms of the divide between east and west and between religions.
	As to Darfur and Zimbabwe, the EU has led the sanctions against Zimbabwe. I am surprised that the website does not identify that and I shall look into the matter. There is a major humanitarian crisis in Darfur, which we have sought to avert. We have not managed to do so and it is now a priority, not only for the UK but for others in the European Union.
	The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to the context in which NATO was formed. In particular, he pointed out the importance of the entire multilateral system. I entirely agree. The noble Lord knows of the Government's commitment to multilateralism. We seek to work through the UN, NATO, the WTO, the World Bank and other organisations. Given the increasing difficulties that we face as a global community, particularly from terrorism, these multilateral bodies will become even more significant.
	I do not agree that attention was switched from Afghanistan. The noble Lord is aware that we worked very hard to ensure that that did not happen. There has been an ongoing dialogue with the Government of Afghanistan. We have given development assistance in addition to our assistance through ISAF. We are working with the Afghanistan Government to put in place the public service, for example, particularly in relation to financial accountability. We need to continue that interest. There is no doubt that the security situation in Afghanistan and the fact that we have not been able to establish a stable and secure environment in certain parts of the country has hindered the longer-term reconstruction process. That is why we recognise that it is important to work to establish security in Iraq.
	It would take an extremely brave woman to pre-empt any announcement on the comprehensive spending review. I am not that brave. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will have to wait.
	As regards the Middle East, we shall continue to support the ongoing initiatives. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will know that at Istanbul a voluntary initiative on the Middle East was agreed. This will build on the wider G8 Middle East initiative.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, but, with great respect, is there not a huge element of propaganda in it?
	First, would not a more realistic Statement on Afghanistan have made a passing reference to the fact that poppy production is now higher than it was before the war—more money for terrorism; more drugs?
	Secondly, would not a more realistic Statement on Iraq have quite rightly referred not only to the loss of life of British soldiers but also to the 15,000 Iraqi lives lost in an optional war that has left the world a more dangerous place?
	Thirdly, would not a more realistic approach also have admitted that a judgment on democracy in Iraq can be made only over a period of five, 10 or 15 years? Did the Minister notice the statement made by Sir Jeremy Greenstock last week in London, on page 1 of the FT on Saturday, that the idea of a western-style democracy in Iraq is impossible and that there are huge obstacles?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, because, if one looks at Afghanistan and the issue of drugs, a point raised by the noble Lord, one sees that this country leads in that area. It takes years to ensure that alternatives are provided into which individuals who make a great deal of money from poppy production can transfer their interest. We have been working to embed the importance of that kind of long-term sustainability into those individuals in Afghanistan. It will not happen overnight—I acknowledge that—but I do not share the noble Lord's pessimism.
	As regards Iraq, power generation is now averaging around 4,000 megawatts. Progress has not been as rapid as we had hoped, but that is primarily as a result of sabotage and other security problems. We have to recognise that there are people who do not want an independent, democratic Iraq to succeed.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if we are to win hearts and minds in Iraq it is important fulsomely to put on record our acknowledgement of the supreme sacrifice made by thousands of Iraqis in a war over which they had no influence?
	Turning to the future, does not my noble friend agree that two issues need to be absolutely clear? First, following the United Nations authorisation of the way forward, it is not only a matter of a role for the United Nations in Iraq but of accountability to the United Nations for all that follows as a result of the implementation of that resolution? Secondly, does she agree that in the all-important forthcoming conference to consider the constitutional future, it will be essential to throw the net as wide as possible and to involve people with whom it might be quite difficult to talk and with whom we have had great problems in the past? If the net is not thrown wide it will be virtually impossible to have the necessary degree of stakeholding by a sufficient cross-section of the Iraqi people to ensure success.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is right: we have to recognise the sacrifices that have been made by individuals in moving Iraq from a situation where it was led by a violent dictator, through the current situation, where there is a degree of instability—particularly in respect of security—and elements who wish to ensure that the country does not succeed, to a process where the people of Iraq have full control of their own country and resources.
	As to accountability, my noble friend is right: UNSCR 1546 sets out very clearly what is required politically in Iraq. The role of the UN in relation to that will be absolutely critical in working with the transitional Iraqi Government and throwing the net as wide as possible. The importance of ensuring that women are a key part of that process is an issue that has been raised many times in the House.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, bearing in mind today's explosions in Afghanistan, is the noble Baroness confident that with the level of commitment which has been pledged by NATO, we will get anywhere near the level of security that will be needed in Afghanistan, as other noble Lords have said, if there are to be elections and if the drug warlords are to be defeated? At present, the level is about a quarter of that which was committed to Kosovo, for example.
	Could the Minister say why there is merely half a sentence on Israel/Palestine in the Statement? What does that indicate in terms of the priorities of those at the NATO meeting? What specific measures will be taken on the conflict in the Middle East which, as my noble friend Lord McNally has pointed out, is at the core of the problems in the Middle East?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the noble Baroness's final point, the Statement made it absolutely clear at the beginning that it would focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, as those had been the central issues discussed at the meeting. That is not to say that other issues were not discussed—however, the Statement made it clear that Iraq and Afghanistan would be the focus. The noble Baroness may wish to look at the communiqué of the meeting; it makes mention of the Istanbul Middle East initiative, which builds on the wider G8 initiative. I am quite happy to write to the noble Baroness on that.
	On security in Afghanistan, the noble Baroness is quite right. In certain parts of Afghanistan it has been very difficult to reach the level of security that would enable the broader development and reconstruction effort to take hold. That is precisely why we have taken the slightly different approach of establishing provincial reconstruction teams, a mix of civilian and military. What has been announced following the NATO summit is the addition of four PRTs which will help to establish security in different parts of the country.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. In it, the Prime Minister said:
	"I worry that our response is still not sufficient to the scale of the challenge we face".
	I wonder what new initiative Her Majesty's Government have in mind to give a lead to others if there is not to be an increase in the operational deployment of our Armed Forces, which are already very heavily committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do Her Majesty's Government have it in mind to do?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, following the announcement in Istanbul, we will do two things: first, we shall contribute a new provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan. Secondly, we have offered our leadership in terms of NATO capabilities in Afghanistan from 2006.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, I wonder whether I could put to the noble Baroness a further question about the elections in Afghanistan. Does she accept, as I do, the description given by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, of the current situation in Afghanistan, which makes the prospect of elections freely fought, as we would understand in the West, wholly remote, thus sustaining the point made by my noble friend Lord Lamont? Can she confirm that the package of support—to use her words—that is to be given for the elections in Afghanistan will include provision for independent monitors who can report on the extent to which this election is a reality and an illusion?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, NATO plans to deploy extra troops to bolster security in the run-up to the Afghan elections this year, including the possible deployment of elements of the NATO response force. We are already looking at how NATO can further assist the Afghan Government and will be encouraging allies to commit troops and resources for the next phase of ISAF expansion.
	It would be wrong to assume that the security situation in Afghanistan is such that it means that these elections, which are due to be carried out in September this year, will not be able to go ahead. We have been engaged in discussions with the interim government in Afghanistan over many months, as has the UN. With respect to the noble Lord's point about deploying observers, I am sure that the UN will ensure that that happens.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the Lord President of the Council did not answer my noble friend's question about the possibility of Parliament being recalled in the event of additional British deployment to Iraq after the House has risen. Can she now respond to that?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, there is not a question to answer. I said in relation to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this is being kept under review. There is no such decision, so it is not a question that I am able to answer.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I warmly welcome the renewed focus on Afghanistan, as many people involved in Afghanistan aid and reconstruction will. But does the noble Baroness agree that this is only half the story, or less than half the story? She has spoken of the reconstruction teams. They are of course helpful, but the numbers are very small in comparison with the coalition forces which are fighting along the Pakistan border and include some of our own special forces. We very rarely hear any statement which takes into account what the coalition forces are doing. Since there is a lot of concern in the House, could the noble Baroness undertake to give a fuller statement at some future stage, and perhaps a briefing for noble Lords, on the true nature of our security support for Afghanistan?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am quite happy to supply a briefing for noble Lords on the security situation in Afghanistan. Noble Lords will know that the Department for International Development puts on its website regular updates about development, but if it would be helpful to do the same for security aspects, I undertake to do so and to put a copy in the Library of the House.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Lord President of the Council agree with me that the outburst of attempts by some member states to persuade the new president-elect of the Commission to allocate certain portfolios to certain nationals is premature, improper and liable to be counter-productive? Will the Government resist any temptation to join in this game?
	Does the noble Baroness agree that with regard to Afghanistan, a postponement of the elections would be the worst possible thing in the circumstances? It would show that the men of violence are capable of frustrating the will of the international community. There was a perfectly good precedent in Cambodia, where one-third of the country was prevented by the Khmer Rouge from participating in the United Nations-led elections but the Security Council went ahead, and it was right to do so. Although the position is far from perfect in Cambodia, it is certainly a lot better than it would have been if the elections had been pulled.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am sure that the new president is a skilled enough political operator to know that allocating portfolios and choosing the individuals to fill them will have to be done in detailed discussions—very detailed, I am sure—with member states.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is quite right. None of us wants to see the postponement of elections in Afghanistan. I am well aware, from discussions I have had with President Karzai and members of the interim government in Afghanistan, that they do not want to see that happen either. They are very clear about the importance of these elections for securing Afghanistan's future.

Civil Service

Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: rose to call attention to the size of the Civil Service and the case for an independent service; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce this debate on the Civil Service, and, in particular, its size and its independence from undue party political pressure and control.
	Let me make it absolutely clear at the outset that this debate is not meant to be a blanket attack from a Conservative point of view on either the Civil Service or, more generally, the public sector. To raise issues regarding the size and independence of the Civil Service is not to argue for a minimalist state or to suggest that government does little but harm. Conservatives are not libertarians. Effective government is critical for the functioning of our economy and for the efficient delivery of public services. For this to happen, it is important that we have a Civil Service made up of talented individuals committed to public service.
	We are fortunate that we have such a service in this country. This year celebrates the 150th anniversary of the report of those two Treasury civil servants, Northcote and Trevelyan, which set out the case for a permanent Civil Service based on merit, free of patronage and politically impartial. Since that time, we have seen the development of a public service ethos and character in the Civil Service in this country which has emphasised integrity, honesty, merit, impartiality, probity and a true belief in public service.
	Sir Andrew Turnbull, the present head of the Civil Service, is therefore fully justified in describing it as a national asset. It has the power to improve the strength of our economy and to raise the quality of life. I would applaud the work of civil servants during my five and a half years in Number 10. They really lived what they proclaimed.
	I shall focus on two issues in this debate. Before I do so, I must declare two interests: first, as the head of the Prime Minister's Policy Unit and special adviser at 10 Downing Street for five and a half years from 1985 to 1990; and secondly, and more recently, as chairman of a company which supplies property-related services to, among others, the public sector and one large government department.
	The first issue is size. Under successive Conservative governments, the number of civil servants was reduced from roughly 750,000 to 500,000. The momentum to reduce numbers continued even with the new Government, so that, by 1999, the number was just under 477,000. Then things started to change. By October 2003, the number of civil servants rose by around 35,000 on a full-time equivalent basis and 60,000 part time and full time. With that, there was a 42 per cent increase in costs during that period. Last year, costs increased by around 10 per cent.
	I am delighted to say that the Government have now accepted that that party is over. According to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, more than 42,000 Civil Service jobs are to go by 2008; 10,000 jobs are to go from merging the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise; 30,000 jobs are to go at the DWP. The Department for Education and Skills is to cut its headquarter staff by 30 per cent and the Department of Health is to make a cut of nearly 40 per cent. Those are staggering figures. It is not a party political point, but one cannot help feeling that they are a considerable indictment on the way in which the Government have failed to control costs and allowed staff numbers to rise over the past four years.
	The driving force for change has been the recent efficiency review led by Sir Peter Gershon. Its goal is a Civil Service which is small, less departmental, more flexible, more innovative and making more use of specialist skills. According to press reports, as a result of departmental mergers, better procurement across government, shared back office services in human resources and finance, and a greater use of IT, the job cuts could amount to 80,000. Will they be realised? I have three reservations.
	First, in the private sector, effecting change requires expensive investment. For the Civil Service to realise savings of £15 billion to £20 billion per year, the Government are reported to have set aside a sum of just £300 million to make sure that happens. We know that one major factor in achieving savings is the introduction of information technology. Anyone with experience of this area, however, knows that embarking on reform of IT and predicting IT costs is a treacherous business. Is the Minister satisfied that that figure is really sufficient to achieve those huge savings?
	Secondly, although Civil Service jobs are to be cut, public sector employment will not necessarily fall. Cutting Civil Service jobs is a way of freeing up resources to use in the front-line provision of public services. The theory is that people will move from the back office to the classroom, the hospital ward and the care facility. That is excellent theory, but the reality is that as the brake is slammed on in one part of the public sector, the accelerator will be pressed in another. The danger is that we will reduce bureaucracy in the Department of Health, but increase bureaucracy in the regions and in the NHS trusts. Similarly, we might reduce bureaucracy in the Department for Education and Skills, but increase it in local education authorities and the new regulatory bodies. What assurance can the Minister give that we will achieve net cuts?
	Thirdly, the Prime Minister, in launching radical change in the Civil Service, talked about,
	"less unproductive interference in the day-to-day management of public service".
	Again, that is a wonderful sentiment, but for this Government, such a statement is almost an oxymoron. New initiatives are the very DNA of new Labour. We have seen literally hundreds of new initiatives in education and health since 1997. We know that new initiatives mean new targets, new quangos and new structures.
	The only way we can ensure that the public is better served is not just by cutting in one place and adding in another, but also by restructuring the public services with greater choice for parents and patients, greater operating freedom for producers and less interference from the centre.
	I applaud initiatives of the Government such as foundation hospitals, private health facilities being used in the NHS and state schools being run by private sector operators, but instead of being granted real freedom to respond to local needs, they still find themselves part of centrally managed bureaucracies and quangos. The challenge, therefore, is not just to produce a leaner Civil Service and a leaner public sector, but also to ensure at the same time that structural changes take place which ensure that the provision of public services genuinely responds to the needs of parents and patients.
	The second issue to which I would like to draw your Lordships' attention is the merits of an independent Civil Service. In my Motion, I have used the word "independent" in relation to the Civil Service. I fully realise that, under our constitution, the Civil Service can never be independent of the government of the day. Civil servants are employed by the Crown and take orders from Ministers as Ministers of the Crown. They owe loyalty to the government of the day, but they do not owe a loyalty to the political party to which members of the Government belong. In that sense, they are independent of party politics. In order to ensure their impartiality, they should not be required, therefore, to take orders from political appointees, but they are required to take orders from Ministers in implementing the manifesto on which an election was won. That is a subtle but important distinction. The charge against the present Government is that they have ridden roughshod over this territory and violated that fine boundary which has existed in practice, but which is not set out in detail anywhere.
	In raising the issue of independence, I recognise the value of the adage that people in glasshouses should not throw stones. I fully acknowledge that a failure to meet standards, whether in personal life or in financial matters, by certain individuals in previous Conservative governments, which culminated in that expression "sleaze", means that we on these Benches should be careful before levelling criticism at others. Despite those flaws, to the best of my knowledge, previous Conservative governments were never accused of politicising the Civil Service. The question "Is he one of us?" related to a can-do spirit and an openness to grapple with change, but not to whether civil servants could be relied on slavishly to support a party line. I worked with many civil servants, some of whom, I suspect, would have found it impossible to vote for the Conservative Party. However, they showed a professionalism and a fairness in implementing policy which was second to none.
	At the heart of the issue of independence is the charge about the misuse of the position of special advisers—first, about the fact that their numbers have more than doubled, from 38 in 1997 to 81 at the latest count; secondly, and more importantly, due to the fact that there was an increase in No. 10 from eight in 1997 to 27 today; thirdly, about the increasing use of special advisers to make public and private statements to the media on behalf of the Government, which we would never have dared to do in my day; and finally, because of the fact that in No. 10 two special advisers were in 1997 given "executive powers" so that they could give orders to civil servants. For that to happen, the Civil Service Order in Council had to be amended, something which was not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
	The Committee on Standards in Public Life commented that:
	"The result is that the posts seem to mark a departure from the role for which special advisers have normally been appointed".
	Sir Richard Wilson—now the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, whom I am delighted to see is taking part in this debate—as head of the Civil Service explained that the effect of those powers was to give,
	"the right to discuss things with civil servants, and to ask civil servants to take things on without debating whether or not a boundary had been crossed".
	It was because of this that in recent years the most senior civil servants—the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, Sir Andrew Turnbull and Sir Nigel Wicks—have all called for a Civil Service Act to define more clearly the boundaries between the work of civil servants and that of political appointees.
	The Government's response has been puzzling. They have repeatedly promised to introduce a Civil Service Bill to entrench the core values of the Civil Service, place limits on the activities of special advisers and set out the responsibilities of the Civil Service Commission, which would mean that this area would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They made that commitment when in opposition, before 1997, confirmed it in July 1998 and July 2000 and again in 2001, and repeated it again in January this year in another place. Yet the Government have still not in fact introduced a Bill.
	I shall comment briefly on my own views of those charges. I found that at the apex of British government, in the Cabinet Office and No. 10, the system worked well when the role of each entity—the No. 10 private office, the policy unit, the press office, the political office and the Cabinet Office—was well defined, even though not written down, and when the relevant players were prepared to exercise the necessary self-discipline to make it work. If the role of any part became unclear or if certain individuals refused to play by the rules, as some did, the result was inevitably conflict, confusion, disgruntled Ministers and bad government.
	I believe that that is precisely what we have seen in recent years. Dramatically to increase the number of special advisers at No. 10, including two with executive powers, is an attempt, perhaps unintended, to change at a fundamental level the nature of the British constitution. It is to inject into the Prime Minister's office some of the powers of a presidential office. The US system has much to commend it, but we in the UK could go down that route only under a different constitution. Short of that, because the boundaries have been violated, we have strayed into a hybrid situation, in which the independence of the Civil Service is being called into question and in which, if it continues, it will be increasingly difficult to preserve the public service ethos of the Civil Service and recruit the most talented people.
	We need change. My own view is that special advisers have an important role to play in good government; that one or at most two special advisers in government departments can help Ministers carry out their responsibilities more effectively; and that the Prime Minister must have the freedom to choose the way his office is structured, but that he or she must accept the constraints of our constitution. Having 27 special advisers in No. 10 is, in my judgment, absolutely outrageous, and in my experience would have meant mayhem. The number should be restricted to eight or, at most, 10. The position of special advisers with "executive powers" should be abolished, and there should be a Civil Service Bill along the lines I have mentioned.
	Let me conclude by saying that the public service ethos of our Civil Service is an outgrowth of our particular, but in many ways ill-defined, constitution. We tamper with it at our peril. We want to ensure a lean Civil Service fit for purpose, but above all we want to preserve its independence and impartiality. It is precisely this that the Government have put at risk, which makes the demand therefore for a Civil Service Bill that more urgent. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Wilson of Dinton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his initiative in arranging this debate. I am not sure whether this is a conflict of interests, but I declare that he and I worked alongside each other when he was head of the policy unit in No. 10 and I was head of the domestic secretariat. We both know from our own experience that special advisers and career civil servants can have a very constructive relationship.
	The noble Lord rightly made the point that the size of the Civil Service reduced by nearly 40 per cent between 1976 and 1999. It reached a low point of 460,000 in April 1999. Since then, it has risen again to more than 500,000—I do not know the exact figure—and now we are told that the pendulum is swinging the other way. We have not seen the Gershon report, but we must assume that it is there. The focus appears to be on numbers.
	I hope that those who are engaged in the exercise are paying attention to the lessons learned from previous drives to reduce the size of the Civil Service. It is an error to concentrate too heavily on numbers rather than expenditure. The Thatcher government in the early 1980s initially concentrated on manpower controls and a freeze on recruitment. The experience was not particularly successful and, after a while, they developed a more sophisticated regime based on the control of running costs. Over time, it brought about the substantial decline described by the noble Lord.
	Controls on numbers are unsatisfactory because they rapidly become a haggle, in which every kind of subterfuge and device gets deployed. People start taking credit for staff numbers reducing when jobs were already going to be lost. People use expensive consultants rather than their own staff, because they do not count against the manpower ceiling, and they time the employment of part-time and casual staff so that it is not reflected in the actual numbers. It becomes a game of meeting numbers rather than managing well. That is a lesson that we can demonstrate clearly.
	It is striking that between 1993 and 1997, the then Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, was very successful in cutting Civil Service numbers, with a certain cheerful brutality that was little noted at the time except by those of us affected by it. Every year, he reduced the running costs of departments by freezing them in cash terms, reducing them by a margin—something like 2.5 per cent—for efficiency, and leaving departments to get on with it. The result was that the head count for the Civil Service quietly declined by more than 100,000 between 1992 and 1998. Then, as the noble Lord said, the squeeze was relaxed and the curve began to climb again.
	A squeeze on numbers must be accompanied by an intelligent look at the work that needs to be done. If one uses fewer resources, one needs also to take a sensible look at what those resources are deployed to do. In short, the process needs to be managed intelligently and humanely; if one just frightens the horses, one gets the wrong results and one distorts management.
	I turn to the question of an independent Civil Service. I hesitate a little over the word "independent". As the noble Lord acknowledged, it is not entirely satisfactory. The Labour Party manifesto of 2001 said that our Civil Service is well renowned for its independence; I would prefer it to be well renowned for its political impartiality and its integrity. The word "independence" carries a hint that the Civil Service is a separate estate, which it is not.
	It is a cardinal characteristic of the Civil Service that its staff are selected on merit, through fair and open competition, in accordance with the rules laid down by the Civil Service commissioners. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, is here today. Its staff are also politically impartial. Civil servants are expected to conduct themselves in a way that deserves and retains the confidence not only of current Ministers but also those whom they may be required to serve in future. That is bedrock.
	The only civil servants exempt from this requirement are special advisers. They are exempt from the general requirement to be objective and impartial but under the Civil Service Order in Council their role is confined to giving advice only. This applies to all special advisers, as it has done for some years, except for up to three working in No. 10, who may have executive powers.
	It is common ground among everyone familiar with special advisers that they perform a useful role and that their relationship with career civil servants can be constructive and positive. It is also common ground that the number of special advisers allowed to a Cabinet Minister should be small: at most one or two. That is the position in the present Ministerial Code and was the position for many years under previous governments. I think it is well established. As the noble Lord said, the expansion has been in No. 10 and, to a lesser degree, in the Treasury.
	My own view, which I have explained in the House before and on other occasions, is that we have reached the point where we need a Civil Service Act which, among other things, would bring the role of special advisers on to the statute book and more directly under the scrutiny of Parliament. Parliament has a role to play in this, for the reasons given by the noble Lord. We explored this in the Second Reading of the excellent Bill drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I will not go over the ground again.
	I would like to address the issue of special advisers in No. 10 having executive powers. We need to ask ourselves why they need, or may need, executive powers. The Wicks committee, in its admirable ninth report, Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service, identified a number of things that those who hold executive powers should not be able to do. They should not have responsibility for the appraisal, reward, discipline or promotion of civil servants, nor should they be able to give instructions to civil servants outside the Prime Minister's office. I wholeheartedly agree with the Wicks committee and I would add recruitment to the list. I do not think that holders of executive power should be able to recruit permanent civil servants.
	So, if special advisers with executive powers are to be allowed, what should they be able to do? According to the Wicks committee, they might authorise the spending of government money chargeable to the Prime Minister's office. I am not clear that that is in fact an important aspect of the work carried out by those special advisers who have had these powers so far. It would be interesting to know if they have ever actually authorised expenditure. Secondly, according to the Wicks committee, executive powers allow them to play a role in the line management of civil servants. Thirdly, they allow them to have charge of, or direction over, the work of Government Information and Communications Service members in the Prime Minister's office.
	This is the heart of the matter. I suspect that it boils down to a wish to allow one or two special advisers to co-ordinate activities in No. 10 alongside the principal private secretary: to chair meetings; to direct people about the work they should do; to direct communications with the media; and generally to help run No. 10. There is a risk in all this. The risk, however theoretical, is that, once formalised, these executive powers could be used to put career civil servants in No. 10 into a difficult position over maintaining political impartiality. I am not saying that this has happened. I am merely saying that the potential exists.
	I believe that it ought normally to be possible, given the wealth of talent in the Civil Service, to find people who can provide Ministers with the quality of support that they want in No. 10 from within the ranks of the Civil Service without having to resort to special advisers with executive powers. Such civil servants have been found very often in the past. But Prime Ministers differ. I recognise that No. 10 is special in the way that the two great streams of politics and government come together there. It gives the work of No. 10 a special quality. I also recognise that from time to time there have been Prime Ministers who wanted to have one or two close confidantes to help them to run No. 10 and the government; I refer, for example, to Disraeli and Corry, to Harold Macmillan and John Wyndham and to the small group around Harold Wilson.
	It may be that there should be some limited flexibility to allow executive powers in the Civil Service Bill, but on conditions. The post of principal private secretary must not be undermined. It has a constitutional significance and plays a key role in making sure that the executive powers are not abused. The creation of such posts must be subject to some form of approval by Parliament at the beginning of each Parliament, as must the total number of special advisers deployed across the whole of government. Here, as elsewhere, I see Parliament and the Civil Service Commissioners having a key role in ensuring that the value of the Civil Service as a national asset is preserved.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend on having arranged this very timely debate. I agreed with everything that he said and will try not to say too much of it again. We all look forward to two maiden speeches.
	In these circumstances, I propose, rather curiously, to begin my few remarks with a reference to a speech made in March by the noble Lord, Lord Sheldon, at the Second Reading of the Executive Powers and Civil Service Bill. I am delighted to see him in his place. He said that a great many people who serve in the Civil Service, even in these cynical days, believe that:
	"The opportunity to take a part in the defence of our country or to play a part in its achievements is one of the noblest of aims".—[Official Report, 5/3/04; col. 895.]
	I am inclined to think that very many people who serve in the Civil Service and who serve all of us so very admirably hold to that very proper belief. Long may that continue, but how long will it continue?
	The answer to that question will be influenced very considerably by whether a sufficient supply of recruits to Her Majesty's Home Civil Service who are thus motivated will remain. It will depend upon how we treat that service now. I say "now" because of how the public perceive the Civil Service now. I turn to the speech made during the discussion of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, by the noble Lord who has just sat down, who was the former head of the Civil Service. He said:
	"There is a wide perception that the Civil Service has become politicised. I regret that perception very much. In some ways, it is confusing, because the term is unclear and means different things to different people. Whether one believes it or not, it is a perception which has now to be addressed".
	The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, had spoken earlier of those features of the Civil Service that must not change. I agree with him. He listed them:
	"selection on merit, integrity, political impartiality, giving its best advice, and a commitment to public service".
	He went on to say:
	"At a time of rapid change, Parliament and the public are entitled to be reassured that those characteristics . . . indeed remain unchanged".—[Official Report, 5/3/04; col. 917.]
	I cannot think of any possible meaning of the term "politicisation" that does not undermine each and every one of those characteristics. Yet it is surely those very characteristics that are attractive to the type of recruit who we need for the service.
	I do not think that one can sensibly ascribe the decline in public confidence and in the public perception of the Civil Service to any single factor. I think there are several factors. Noble Lords can, no doubt, think of different ones. I think that if any political party is in government for more than two successive Parliaments and one is an official at a certain level, it must be only too natural to fear that in order to get on it might be wise at least to hint at holding congenial opinions. That idea must never be given any encouragement at all by Ministers or by anyone else but I reckon that it can exist.
	Along with my noble friend, I am in no doubt that the factor contributing most to the decline in public perception has been the rise of the special adviser, which has been made even more manifest in recent years. I thought that there were 73, or possibly 77, of them. I took that from the most recent research that I looked at, but my noble friend tells us that there are 81. In any event, it is more than twice what it was in 1997. It is not their cost that I mind so much, £5 million or more though it is; it is their burgeoning function. As we have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, their function now extends far beyond the function of giving advice only, specified in an Order in Council in 1995, which was amended two or three years later, as we have been reminded, to allow up to three officials in the Prime Minister's office to have executive powers. For that the Government must take responsibility.
	Some of these functions may well be necessary. I am inclined to believe that some of them are; that seems almost to be common ground. It may very well be impractical to list fully all the things that they can properly do, but one can set out qualities and characteristics. However, what is absent is something that I think would be perfectly practicable: a clear and definitive formulation in statutory form of what they cannot do and must not do. Without that, I think that the boundaries will always remain debateable, that what one might call "adviser creep" will flourish, and that suspicious and adverse perceptions will, accordingly, abound.
	I think that that was clearly recognised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its ninth report, already referred to, which was published last April. It recommended that,
	"a clear statement of what special advisers cannot do",
	should be set out in primary legislation. For that list the committee adopted the views given to it, in his evidence, by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, as he now is. He set out a series of qualities, which I will not, in the short time available, recite. The noble Lord made the point that it should be in primary legislation.
	How did the Government respond? A few months later, in September, they said that the issue of what special advisers can and cannot do is best dealt with in a code of conduct rather than on the face of a Bill. I interpose simply to suggest to your Lordships that these matters are far too important to be left to a code of conduct. The Government said:
	"They should be able to convey to officials ministers' views, instructions and work priorities, commission internal analyses and papers, and hold meetings with officials to discuss the advice being put to ministers".
	It is fair to say at this point that, in December, in the face of protests, the Prime Minister, in the words of the head of the Civil Service,
	"having reflected on the wording",
	deleted the "instructions" bit. That is rather an unusual way of alluding to a massive constitutional innovation, one might have thought, and rather a shocking one as well; but there we are.
	As Sir Nigel Wicks asked in a speech at Portcullis House on 29 October,
	"how is the hard-pressed middle-ranking official in a department to know when a special adviser conveys to officials Ministers' views, instructions, or work priorities",
	that,
	"these are indeed the Minister's own views, instructions and work priorities—not those of the special adviser"?
	I come to the conclusion. What we accordingly need is, as my noble friend said, a Civil Service Act. It would protect the idea and the ideal of the impartial service to government by means of a clear exposition of the status and duties of civil servants, including special advisers. In March we were promised a draft Bill, and it might even be before the summer Recess! We do not need one. We have had consultations galore, at least for the past seven years and arguably for the past 150. We need a substantive Bill and we need it now.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for the warmth of the welcome that I have experienced since joining your Lordships' House. It has been an extraordinarily pleasant experience to be introduced into the sometimes singular ways of this great institution. The staff at every level have made it their business to help, and I congratulate them all on what seems to me a very modern approach to induction training. The freshers' fair, an innovation yesterday in the Moses Room, was an excellent way of meeting everyone and learning about what happens. So any faults in the procedure of the House will be mine alone, given the quality and, indeed, quantity of guidance that I have received.
	I have been fortunate to have been advising the Liberal Democrat Party on foreign and defence policy since my retirement from the Royal Air Force eight years ago. That has often brought me into contact with the work of your Lordships' House. I have been much helped also by serving a fairly long apprenticeship as the research assistant to my noble friend Lord Roper. The debates and questions in my area of interest have always been a treasure trove of information from the most well informed sources and I look forward to opportunities to contribute to those debates in future.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject that is dear to my heart—the Civil Service. I have worked with members of the Civil Service at every level, both when I was in the Air Force and subsequently since I retired. I think that we have a tendency to focus too much just on the policy makers who live down the road in Whitehall and to forget that, as other noble Lords have said, the Civil Service comprises more than half a million people—public servants operating not just at home but around the world in the service of the nation. In the Statement this afternoon, the Lord President told us about the dedication not only of the Armed Forces but of the British public servants in Iraq. That is a good example of what the Civil Service is about. It encompasses a wide range of activities.
	I have always been impressed by civil servants' dedication and—a word we have heard time and again this afternoon—integrity. This debate is an opportunity to pay tribute to these men and women who continue to work in the best traditions of the public service.
	In order to attract recruits of the right calibre at all levels, Civil Service pay and conditions must broadly follow what is happening in the rest of the world in the commercial sector. As that causes the continual problem of rising personnel costs that outstrip inflation, we continually face pressure to reduce numbers. While industry can square that circle by using technology to increase productivity, it is not as easy as that for many parts of the public service where what counts is the numbers on the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, suggested some interesting ways of getting round that, but, as he said, money is what ultimately counts.
	As a result, successive governments of all political colours have looked constantly for ways of cutting the size and cost of the Civil Service. Twenty five years ago we had more than 300,000 civil servants in the defence field, but that has now been reduced to about 90,000. The reduction to less than one third of the original number has proportionately been much greater than the cuts in the Armed Forces in the same time, and many of the tasks that the Armed Forces had to perform were transferred across to their Civil Service colleagues.
	I believe that we need to take great care in how we handle the future of the Civil Service so that we do not appear in our rhetoric to undervalue its contribution to the nation. It is understandable that the remorseless pressure to contain public spending will focus on the elimination of unnecessary costs. However, in the rhetoric of cutting bureaucracy we need to remember that the bureaucrats are there because the Government have brought their posts into existence. Each individual civil servant rightly has career aspirations and a sense of pride in their job.
	In the field of national security, which interests me, we have seen a new transfer of the burden from military hands to the Civil Service. The most recent defence White Paper, Command Paper 6041, published last December, stated:
	"The safety and security of the population of the UK is the responsibility of the Home Office and similar bodies and devolved Administrations".
	So the Civil Service is in the front line in these new and difficult times for security. I shall look forward to examining their role when we soon consider the long awaited Civil Contingencies Bill.
	There is one area of the policy-making Civil Service that has been of concern to me over a number of years. The higher reaches of Whitehall have traditionally contained some of the best intellects in the country—and I recognise a number of your Lordships who fit that description. I have always found it an extraordinarily stimulating experience to work with my Civil Service colleagues during my various times in Whitehall. Yet at a time when technology has an ever greater impact on policy, we continue to see few at the top of the policy-making career ladder with a scientific training. I wrote a book 15 years ago about the difficulties of making optimum decisions in defence policy. I do not think that things have changed much over that 15 years. I concluded that we might do a little better if some of the policy-makers had a reasonable grounding in science.
	Professor David King, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, warned in June 2001 that:
	"The tremendous capacity of science is not being used to assist government and policy-makers in the best way".
	Sir Andrew Turnbull, in his open letter to all staff on the Civil Service website, says:
	"Technology will make a huge impact on the services we provide to the public".
	Today, of the 19 Permanent Secretaries in Whitehall, only one records a first degree in a scientific discipline. In deference to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, I record that nine of the Permanent Secretaries—that is, nearly half—have qualifications which include economics. However, I do not think it is worth starting a debate on whether economics is a science or an art.
	We have a Civil Service that is under great pressure, both in tasks and resources. We need to be able to recruit people willing to devote themselves to the development and delivery of good government. Today's Civil Service is striving hard to set an example as an employer that welcomes diversity and is truly representative of wider society. We should be particularly proud of the record of integrity throughout the Civil Service.
	I believe that we need to cherish the qualities that make our Civil Service, but that does not mean that it is immune to change. Keeping the loyalty, dedication and integrity of these public servants must be done, while at the same time broadening the range of expertise at the highest levels.

Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House it is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Garden, on his very authoritative maiden speech. I hope that he will not consider it impertinent that congratulations come from someone who was a mere Army captain in World War II. The noble Lord comes here with a great record in our armed services, of which we are justly proud. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say how much we look forward to many future contributions from the noble Lord.
	I should like to add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Griffiths for introducing such an important and topical subject today. I begin by making two general points. First, as I see it, there are two key elements in this debate. One concerns the relations between Ministers and civil servants, which must be close, impartial—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in that regard—and based on trust. The other point, which I believe is equally important, is that every Minister must be a member of either the Commons or the Lords.
	I wish to expand briefly on those two points. Civil servants are the professionals and the experts. Ministers are amateurs who need a good political nose. Civil servants advise, Ministers decide. If Ministers get it wrong too often, they very quickly find themselves confined to the Back Benches. I remember very well when I was first made a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security in 1970 when the Conservative Party was not expected to win the election. I was amazed by the amount of work that was done by officials on the Conservative manifesto and on Conservative speeches. That made for a smooth transition from one government to another, provided some element of continuity and, above all, prevented, I hope, junior Ministers like me making silly mistakes through ignorance or over enthusiasm.
	The second point, which I think is equally important, is that all Ministers should be members of one or other House. This applies in particular to the House of Commons where Ministers are elected like every other MP and have constituents to look after. They are subject to the gusts of emotion that can sweep through the House of Commons out of a clear blue sky. They are, therefore, in a very good position to take the pulse of Parliament and people. Civil servants, of course, are not involved in that, and nor should they be, but Ministers must be. The link with Parliament keeps Ministers on their toes. It also imposes on the Civil Service an obligation not to advise policies to Ministers that they know Parliament will not accept. We must take account of those two key elements when we are discussing these matters. It enables us to keep the relationships in parliamentary government in good repair.
	In the time that is available to me I want to refer to one other aspect, which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Griffiths and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, and that is the tension which is now developing between Ministers and the Civil Service. I am not making a party point: this has happened under Conservative governments recently as it has under Labour governments. However, it emphasises the need, which has already been stated, for a Civil Service Act. This has been advocated for years with great authority in both Houses of Parliament. It has also been advocated in the Wicks committee report, Defining the Boundaries within the Executive.
	It is sad that the Government have always appeared lukewarm when answering debates on this subject. I am so glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, on the Government Front Bench. He has responded to debates on this subject, as he always does, with great courtesy. However, he will be conscious of the fact that his answers have not been met with great enthusiasm in any part of the House. I do not blame the noble Lord for that; he is batting on a very sticky wicket, and, unfortunately, his captain has always selected the worst bat he can find in the pavilion to send him in with. We do not blame the noble Lord personally at all. However, it is good to note that he will answer yet another debate on this important subject.
	I have time only to mention very briefly one other issue that I believe has been raised in all the speeches so far; namely, the position of special advisers. They have more than doubled in number in 10 years under both governments. I hold the old-fashioned view that the best political adviser to a Minister is the Minister himself. However, that is an old-fashioned view. We now have special advisers and we have to live with them. Their functions and their powers should be much more clearly defined by statute passed by Parliament not by a code of conduct over which Parliament has little or no control. That was, of course, one of the key recommendations of the Wicks committee. I believe, as does the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, that it is disturbing that in some cases special advisers should have executive powers to direct civil servants. That is a very disturbing and sinister development.
	We have been promised a draft Civil Service Bill this Session. That, of course, is better than nothing but, as we are getting towards the end of this Parliament, it almost certainly means there will be no Bill on the statute book in this Parliament. I suggest that that reveals an odd sense of priorities when one considers the time and effort that your Lordships' House is giving at the present moment to other issues.

Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am not making any reference to the previous speech or the exceptional speech that preceded it, but if we stuck to eight minutes we would finish the debate on time.

Baroness Henig: My Lords, I speak in the debate with some apprehension and no little anxiety. I am, however, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for providing me with this opportunity. Like the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I have been greatly encouraged in the past two weeks by the considerable kindness and support extended to me by all your Lordships and the staff of the House, for which I am extremely grateful. A new Member cannot fail to draw comfort from the strong collegiality displayed by the Members of this House; in return, I promise to observe the guiding conventions that my contribution be short and non-contentious.
	There is a third convention not so explicitly defined by the House, but well known to all parents—that we should not embarrass our children in public. Suffice it to say that my younger son is considerably relieved that his mother has at last been allocated a secure home in sheltered accommodation and out of harm's way.
	The issues which have surfaced in the debate are of considerable interest to me, as I have spent more than 30 years teaching modern history and British foreign policy at Lancaster University. I recall many a stimulating tutorial discussing with students relationships between Prime Ministers and their senior advisers, the advent and impact of special and political advisers in the 1920s, and opposition demands for an end to waste and the reduction of bureaucracy—objectives which have sometimes assumed considerably lower priority when opposition leaders have found themselves in government. Over the years, governments of whatever hue have promised streamlining and efficiencies. Actually achieving them has proved more problematic, as we may find when Gershon's review is revealed.
	It may interest your Lordships to know that, as a new student at London University, my interest in history and understanding of modern political theory was greatly enhanced by a tutor who was then at the start of an illustrious academic career, and has since become an influential and respected Member of this House. It has to be admitted that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, failed to turn me into an enthusiast for the intricacies of Tudor and Stuart history or an expert on the English Civil War, but as my college tutor for three years he provided encouragement and inspiration and helped to launch me on my academic career, for which I have always been grateful. He is unwell at the moment, and I am sure that all Members join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Henig: My Lords, over the past 20 years I have also served as a magistrate, a Lancashire county councillor and chair of the Lancashire Police Authority. Since 1997, I have chaired the national Association of Police Authorities. In that capacity, I have had the pleasure of working with a range of very able civil servants and government advisers to help to draw up new policies in areas such as community safety, police reform and race and diversity training. I have then had the singular experience, at local level, of endeavouring to implement and deliver those policies.
	It is with the benefit of that dual experience that I endorse the views of Sir Andrew Turnbull, the head of the Civil Service, to make what I hope will be a non-controversial point. He observed last year that the most important challenge facing the Civil Service, and its greatest priority, was to become more customer-focused and skilled in service delivery. People are demanding more personalised public services and a better quality of provision, and the Government's public service reforms are aimed at responding to those demands.
	Senior civil servants are rightly renowned for their high level of policy analysis, and for the succinct yet compelling argumentation of the briefs that they produce. But what of their practical experience? How well do they understand the problems of those on the front line charged with delivering services? Can they work effectively with partners across the public and private sectors at central and local level? Do they have appropriate management and interpersonal skills, and the ability to help to transform our public services and make them more responsive and more efficient? I agree with Sir Andrew that that is indeed the greatest priority and challenge currently facing the Civil Service.
	For me, there is a second very important priority. I welcome the recent initiatives which, through open competition, have brought a number of talented and highly skilled practitioners from the voluntary and private sectors into the Civil Service, and begun to devolve decision-making and resources to frontline services. We now see more diversity in senior and middle ranks in the Civil Service. However, much more still needs to be done to promote the Civil Service as an attractive career option for people from all walks of life, and as a service in which diversity—in terms of both academic background, as the noble Lord, Lord Garden, suggested, and gender and ethnicity—is welcomed and fully reflected at the most senior levels. I hope that it will not be regarded as too controversial if I quote a successful businesswoman who once said:
	"The ceiling isn't glass; it's a very dense layer of men".
	Convention prevents me on this occasion engaging with the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and other speakers about the relative merits of the different priorities and issues that they highlighted. I hope that that convention will not hold me back from engaging fully in future debates on more controversial issues. I conclude by observing that reforming governments of the past hundred years have always presented complex challenges to their senior civil servants. A succession of highly talented and able officials—many of whom I am delighted to see as distinguished Members of this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—have worked closely with Ministers and their advisers to deliver significant and lasting change. They have achieved that without in any way affecting the impartiality or integrity which will assuredly continue to be a distinguishing hallmark of our Civil Service.

Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, it is with very great pleasure that I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, on a speech that was elegant, eloquent and delivered with a great deal of humour. The House looks forward very much to the contribution that she will be able to make, from not only her long academic experience—it is delightful to have someone who has experience of modern European history to contribute to the House's debates—but her long record of public service with the police authorities.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach very much for giving us an opportunity to talk about the Civil Service. For too many in the general British public, civil servants are seen either as the cunning and rather malevolent Sir Humphrey or, perhaps in more direct experience for many of them, the not-particularly loved frontline servants in the social security offices, jobcentres and, indeed, income tax offices. That is a very distorted picture of what the Civil Service is about.
	I speak from 17 years of having been a member of a particular category of civil servant; namely, the professional advisers in the Civil Service, as one of Her Majesty's inspectors in the department for education. I spent the last 12 of my 17 years working alongside—in the same corridor and in next-door rooms—the administrators of the department, joining them in the same meetings and working with them to help to produce briefings for Ministers, contributing to White Papers, and so on.
	Although I, after 17 years, was one of the not-so-common members of the Civil Service who went over the wall into other employment, one of the first things that struck me was how many of my administrative colleagues saw their commitment to public service as civil servants literally as a lifetime commitment. It was not in any way a passing bit of a career, but a very positive choice that many of them made as young graduates and saw as lasting an entire lifetime. I saw them come in during the 1970s and 1980s, and they were undoubtedly the brightest and best of their generation, wholly willing and eager to propose new ideas and initiatives. They were not at all of the stick-in-the-mud and rather tedious "Yes Minister" picture that is often given.
	They were, quite rightly, absolutely loyal to their Ministers and it has been said that it was impossible for them constitutionally ever to speak in public against Ministers' policies. Nevertheless, they had the immense privilege, denied to many of the general public, of being able to argue with Ministers in private, and I assure noble Lords that they frequently did so. As has been said, they fiercely defended the political independence that they enjoyed and if any politician attempted to interfere or influence them on political grounds they were stoutly put in their place.
	I was saddened to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, who is no longer in his place, in a recent debate on other matters describe a civil servant as,
	"one who dances to another man's tune".—[Official Report, 14/6/04; col. 510.]
	I found that extremely offensive. That does not apply to the civil servants whom I knew; they were proudly impartial and had their own strong convictions and ideas. It seemed to me that there was a well understood dividing line between the initiatives that they were prepared to bring to politicians—within the limits of the policy laid down by Ministers. My experience is that Ministers want ideas; they know the general direction in which they wish to move and rely on their civil servants and professional advisers—as in the department for education, where Ministers relied heavily on Her Majesty's inspectors for the innovative ideas that would enable them to turn those broad policy objectives into reality and into a form which could be implemented.
	I wish briefly to pay tribute to the whole special class of professionals in the Civil Service. It is not said often enough for the general public's understanding that there is a huge range of professionals: lawyers, economists, accountants, architects, doctors, senior doctors, nurses and, as we know in the tragic case of Dr David Kelly, in the intelligence services. They are professionals who bring their independent professional advice, value and judgment to Ministers and to politicians. In a certain way they enjoy an independence which even their administrative colleagues would occasionally envy. But without such professional advice from that range of professionals to shape and to guide government policies, those government policies would be immensely less acceptable and certainly would be infinitely less workable or capable of implementation.
	Good government relies on the expertise and day-to-day knowledge of its professional advisers and its administrative advisers. My experience suggests that it is weak Ministers who offer suspicion of their civil servants. It is foolish Ministers who ignore the advice of their professional advisers or their Civil Service advisers.
	I should like to return to the subject of my own service in Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools. It was founded in 1839 and radically altered by the creation of Ofsted in 1992. In those more than 150 years its role changed from one generation to another. In the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s its role had settled in to a pattern which was much valued by successive Secretaries of State of both major parties in offering advice informed by the massive evidence of observation in thousands of classrooms, lecture rooms, labs and workshops throughout the country.
	HMIs are appointed by the Queen in Council and enjoy a degree of independence which arises from their huge backlog of evidence from those observations in classrooms. On many occasions around a Secretary of State's table I have heard HMI be able to set Ministers on a slightly different course by saying, "But, Minister, we have seen 10,000 cases of such and such and this is what the evidence shows". Although the creation of Ofsted has resulted in radical changes, not least the present use of hundreds of part-time inspectors who have not had the benefit of, one might say, indoctrination into good Civil Service procedures and practice and into the delicacies of the Civil Service role, vis-à-vis the politicians.
	Nevertheless, there are still full-time HMIs in Ofsted with considerable room to influence the public through the reports of their inspections and through their public pronouncements. I regret that they no longer conduct their wide-scale inspections of aspects of education policy that were so influential in the 1980s and 1990s, but I echo only what was said by the authors of a well-known book on HMI. They completed that book with the words:
	"As education becomes increasingly politicised, the independent professional voice of HMI will be needed more than ever".
	I hope that it will be.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I join in the general congratulation of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for calling this debate. As I know him, I know that he will not mind if I devote my few remarks to the areas in which I do not wholly agree with him, rather than to those in which I do.
	My first point concerns independence as a whole. In this place we are prone to the "Ain't everything getting worse?" school of thought, but that can blind us to the fact that in some ways the Civil Service is more, not less, independent now than it was in the past. I shall give the House just two examples. Can anyone doubt that under the Food Standards Agency the practical independence of that admirable body is far in advance of what it was under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)? It was often independent of the Government of the day but never of the National Farmers' Union. That independence was a huge step forward for practical Civil Service independence.
	Another example of which I am more a victim than anything else is the Nolan principles which are applied now to appointments. In my day Ministers would often appoint their chums. I was sitting in the bar here the other day lamenting the fact that it is now easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a Labour supporter—certainly a Labour supporter in this House—to be given a good public appointment, even if that person is admirably qualified, because Ministers are so nervous of being accused of interfering with Civil Service independence. I could multiply such examples, but it is not all getting worse.
	The second point that I must address as a representative of the "National Union of Ex-Special Advisers", who are represented on all three party Benches this afternoon, is the notion that there has been some terrible decline in the independence of the Civil Service because we now have some 90 special advisers in Whitehall. I agree that there are more special advisers in Whitehall than there were in the previous government after the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. But that is not surprising. A government who are highly activist—some of us sometimes think hyper-activist—are bound to require more special advisers than a government who are reduced to splashing about in the malodorous juices of their own misery. That is wholly appropriate. Compared with the core of the senior Civil Service the number of special advisers is really not great enough to have the power that is ascribed to them.
	However, there is a danger because every time that we stand up to say how powerful the special advisers are, without realising it we are actually undermining the permanent Civil Service. I shall not name the organisation, but the other day I saw a letter to a Minister from an organisation in which I am involved. The letter was over a matter which was principally for civil service administrators. But the letter had been copied to the two special advisers at the department—not to the civil servants responsible, not to the people at whom it should have been aimed, but to the special advisers. I expect that we hired some public affairs consultant who told us that that was the thing to do.
	That is a serious concern—or it should be. That is when things start bypassing the proper functions of the special adviser and the career civil servant and get into a different channel. In the light of my experience, I hope that in my dealings with Whitehall I can distinguish between the two and put things into the right channel for the right action. That might help to deal with the problem.
	My third and final point concerns size and to a lesser extent quality. Shortly before coming into the Chamber today, I noticed that the Government were advertising for an official to take charge of Sure Start. I can think of no more important position in the world than heading up Sure Start, but the salary was less than a slight City acquaintance of mine is paying his secretary. There is bound to be an erosion of quality. I noticed that Clive Hawkswood—many of us will know him as an admirable DCMS official; the very model of a modern mandarin, open and communicative, still totally loyal and enthusiastic—has moved to a private-sector post. I have not asked him why, but I cannot help thinking that if his career had been rapidly advanced to the right height, as I wish it had been, he might not be leaving. But there is a danger. If you continue to underpay people, you will experience that loss. If you continue to underrate people, you will experience that loss, which has been most insidious.
	I was so disappointed when my Government—the Government I support—came to power. I thought that some of the previous government downgrading of Civil Service work would stop. I was disappointed soon to find that Ministers were issuing the same kind of criticisms about the civil servants not working hard enough, not obeying orders and so forth, as had been prominent in the previous government. The present Government are the "Yes, Minister" generation coming to power and sniffing out causes for suspicion where none exist. I regret it and believe that it is bad for the quality of the Civil Service.
	Finally, as regards size, I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. Indeed, I would go further. I recently wrote a book on the Treasury, examining the changes in its senior structure. Coming to it as an objective outsider, it seemed clear to me that it had gone from too swollen a structure to too lean a structure. Given the weight of its policy preoccupations and the issues with which it had to deal at a top level, not enough top, experienced people were being kept. I saw good, honest, intelligent officials shunted into early retirement to save a bob or two and I felt that a cost was being paid for that.
	It is so easy to get a cheap round of applause by saying, "Let's cut the Civil Service". It is so easy to do it without regard to functions, or fitness for purpose, or any of its strengths. It is totally depressing and enervating to watch the two great parties of state in a competition saying, "Oh, mine's going to be smaller than yours. Mine is smaller than yours". We really need to be more adult about these things. The country has a job it expects its Civil Service to do and it must be staffed appropriately for that job. I hope that if nothing else comes out of the debate, that message, which has been echoed around the Chamber, will filter through.

Baroness Prashar: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths for initiating this debate. I am grateful to have this opportunity to contribute to it. In so doing, I must start by declaring an interest. I am the First Civil Service Commissioner, charged with upholding the core values of the Civil Service; namely, integrity, honesty, impartiality, objectivity and selection on merit. I will therefore confine my contribution to the second part of my noble friend's Motion.
	As your Lordships have already heard, it is the 150th anniversary of the Northcote-Trevelyan report on the organisation of the Civil Service. Those reforms established an impartial Civil Service with recruitment and promotion on merit and did away with patronage. The objective of the reforms was to ensure an effective Civil Service, fit for purpose and respected by the public.
	We have succeeded in them. I regularly see a stream of visitors from a number of countries who regard us as a model of good practice, but when seeing them I often wonder whether we here truly value what we have. It is very easy to take for granted something that is so well established and not pay much attention to maintaining and, particularly at a time of great change, reinforcing the values which have made the Civil Service such an admired institution. I believe that there is a danger of complacency, or even benign neglect.
	We all recognise that since the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms the context within which the Civil Service operates has changed: public expectations have risen; scrutiny and accountability have become sharper, and technology and globalisation pose new challenges. Of course the Civil Service needs to change and evolve and there must always be the capacity to change and adapt.
	As we all know, the Civil Service has never stood still. In the past 25 years, we have witnessed significant changes and are continuing to do so. They were first initiated by my noble friend Lord Wilson and are being continued by Sir Andrew Turnbull.
	With such an emphasis on the focus, approach and structure of the Civil Service, it is equally important that principles such as political impartiality are resolutely maintained. The effectiveness of the Civil Service, whatever its organisation and size, is built on those enduring values. But in my view, those values are under-noticed, under-regarded and sometimes taken for granted. We pay little attention to them.
	This is not a new phenomenon. At a time of any major change in the early 1990s, the then Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee stated:
	"The Civil Service is a national asset transferred from one administration to the next in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. Its efficiency and effectiveness as the instrument of successive governments and the delivery of services to the nation as a whole should, therefore, be a matter of fundamental concern to politicians of all parties".
	Yes, it should be a matter of fundamental concern and, I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, not a political football for politicians to kick around.
	We have already heard that the Civil Service is a national asset and the government of the day hold it in trust on behalf of the nation. Values which have been the bedrock of the Civil Service must therefore be upheld by Ministers, civil servants and politicians. It is incumbent upon Ministers, their special and political advisers and civil servants, to respect and uphold those values particularly enshrined in the Civil Service Code which sets out the values and boundaries that underpin the work of the Civil Service. I say that because as a regulator—it is my job to monitor their implementation—I take the view that it is important that these values are owned by the institution itself—that they are part of its DNA.
	The Civil Service is not independent of the government of the day. Its job is to serve the government of the day with loyalty and commitment, irrespective of personal political views. In that sense, it is politically impartial. But this is of course a two-way relationship. Civil servants serve the government of the day to the best of their ability. On the other hand, Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to their advice and not use them for party-political purposes.
	There are some evident risks in that relationship which must be watched and need constant attention, particularly at a time when the Civil Service is under tremendous pressure to adapt to new ways of doing business. We are seeing a substantial number of appointments to the senior Civil Service being filled by open competition.
	Of course, we need new blood and new skills that are vital in the modern Civil Service, and getting the best people available is imperative. However, we must also ensure that they understand the values that protect the impartiality of the service; in other words, values need constant attention.
	In my view, that was the main thrust of the ninth report of the Wicks committee, which has been mentioned, which stated:
	"We believe that two measures can help provide public assurance that core values are upheld while at the same time ensuring that the Civil Service is fit for purpose. These are:
	(1) to put the Civil Service on a statutory footing . . .
	(2) to reinforce the independent scrutiny of maintenance of the core values of the Civil Service".
	I think that both are important. We want to ensure that the culture of impartiality is promoted, and that we do not solely rely on the Act, although we need the Act in terms of parliamentary scrutiny.
	All the evidence is that the Civil Service Code is not being actively promoted. It is not well known and sometimes not even fully understood. I say that because I go to the Civil Service College to give talks and I am always astounded by the lack of knowledge about the Civil Service Code. In my view, the promotion of the Civil Service Code during induction and thereafter as part of regular training is indispensable if it is to become embedded in the Civil Service culture and it should become a living reality with Civil Service departments taking a lead. It would therefore be helpful to hear from the Minister what progress, if any, has been made in implementing the Wicks committee recommendations on the promotion of the Civil Service Code.
	As to the Civil Service Act, repeated calls have been made over a number of years and a number of noble Lords have said that the pace of change is extremely slow. It would be helpful to have some idea of the timetable and also to hear some comments on what I suggested at Second Reading on the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester; namely, that we need a Joint Committee of both Houses to consider the Bill. It would be helpful to hear the Minister's response on that.
	When I do my work I am constantly reminded of a saying that the British acquire their institutions by accident and lose them in a fit of absentmindedness. If we do not take action, we may wake up one morning and find that the values have weakened to a point of no return.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, for having introduced this timely debate on a subject of real public importance about a national asset essential to good governance. I too have a particular interest as former special adviser to the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, and because of my Civil Service Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, gave a most thoughtful speech, with much of which I entirely agree. We have also had the advantage of two excellent maiden speeches: charming, witty and truly practical by my noble and almost gallant friend Lord Garden, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. They will add their expertise, authority and sense of humour to the debates in this House.
	The debate has also been enriched by contributions from a former Cabinet Secretary, the present First Civil Service Commissioner, a former Attorney-General and another former special adviser with form, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
	For the past couple of decades, fundamental questions have been raised, not only by politicians but also by civil servants about their profession and its place within our constitutional system of parliamentary government. The work of the Commons Select Committee on Public Administration chaired by Tony Wright MP has made an important contribution. This debate will contribute further to public discussion about what the Civil Service is for, and about its relationship with Ministers, Parliament, the courts, the media and our fellow citizens.
	I want to raise one small point before I continue. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, mentioned diversity but there is one aspect of diversity that the Disability Rights Commission asked me to raise and I do so. The commission is concerned that with any reduction in the numbers in the Civil Service, the Government need to give a public commitment that the number of disabled people employed will not be adversely affected. I hope that that can be responded to today.
	The Civil Service has no constitutional personality or responsibility separate from the government of the day. It is there to serve the Government collectively and individually. It is a non-political and disciplined career service. Ministers determine policy and it is the duty of civil servants to give Ministers honest and impartial advice without fear or favour, whether or not the advice accords with the Minister's view.
	That idea of a permanent, disciplined civil service recruited on merit and owing complete loyalty to its masters is older than the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms. Those reforms were first attempted in British India. It was that system which was translated from British India to Britain during Queen Victoria's reign and it is essentially that system, with its virtues and weaknesses, which survives today.
	A century and a half later, the role of government has been transformed. It is not satisfactory for the Civil Service to continue to be regulated under the Royal prerogative. Every noble Lord who has spoken has recognised that Parliament rather than the executive should define the rights and duties of the Civil Service. We need a Civil Service Act. A constitutional monarchy should be matched by a constitutional Civil Service. The duties of civil servants should not be owed exclusively to their Ministers as though they were employees of a chartered East India Company. They and their Ministers should owe duties to Parliament under the Civil Service Act and under powers delegated to Ministers by Parliament itself.
	That is not a new idea. Indeed, in 1854, the Northcote-Trevelyan report recommended something similar. But until now no government have been willing to do so, rejoicing in the fact that power is delightful and absolute power is absolutely delightful. But during the past decade the case for legislation has been widely accepted, notably by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. One of its chairmen, Sir Nigel Wicks, has rightly observed that the introduction of legislation to regulate the relationship between Ministers, civil servants, special advisers and Parliament could help to restore some of the public trust in central government and public office holders that has been lost in recent years.
	There have been concerns about increasing numbers and the intrusive role of special advisers leading to the politicisation of the Civil Service. I agree with a great deal of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and shall return briefly to it. The evidence revealed during the Hutton inquiry about the workings of the Civil Service gave rise to widespread public concern about the current position. The annual report of the Wicks committee published in 2004 noted that a number of the issues raised during the Hutton inquiry were presaged in a general way in the recommendations it had made in its ninth report. It is worth recalling what those recommendations were: first, clarity and parliamentary approval, through a Civil Service Act, of the appropriate boundaries between Ministers, special advisers and civil servants; secondly, a clear statement of what special advisers cannot do set out in primary legislation, and thirdly, the need for powers to be given to the Civil Service Commissioners to investigate on their own initiative concerns raised about possible breaches of the Civil Service Code.
	During a debate on the Hutton inquiry my noble friend Lord McNally stated:
	"The lessons from Hutton are very clear. Never again should a political appointee, and especially the Government's political propaganda chief, be so closely involved in the workings of our secret services. The role and powers given to Alastair Campbell when the Government came into power in 1997 were fraught with dangers for the political neutrality of the Civil Service and the integrity of the information services".—[Official Report, 4/2/04; col. 778.]
	I agree.
	The time is overripe to put the Civil Service on a statutory footing so that we can be sure we have a politically neutral Civil Service, appointed on merit, without political interference or control by politically partisan special advisers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in his important contribution, implied that there needs to be a sufficient core of special advisers with sufficient ability to command the confidence of the regular Civil Service, so as to start an effective ministerial policy unit in government departments as well as in the Prime Minister's Office. I agree with him. When I was recruited by Roy Jenkins to the Home Office in 1974, I was not recruited as a political chocolate soldier; I was recruited because he thought I had a particular skill in the civil law area that was lacking in the Home Office to deal with discrimination law. I cannot of course blow my own trumpet; that would be absurd and inappropriate. But it is true that the skill that I was meant to have was not a skill that the Home Office civil servants had at the time.
	So the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is right to say that you have to be careful that you are able to give the occasional blood transfusion to a government department, which may become arthritic or staid in its ways. It is a good thing to have some exchange between outside and inside professionals. That is why it is dangerous to attack the notion of special advisers in a populist way.
	Having said that, civil servants believing that special advisers have too much influence will demoralise the service and it will tend to lead to politicisation. It is in the public interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said, that the Civil Service itself should be a main source of innovation, able to command the confidence of its Ministers and to execute their policies. I believe that no special adviser, even in No. 10, should be able to exercise executive powers over civil servants. During my two and a half years in the Home Office, it would have been completely unthinkable for me to have done so or to have sought to do so, or indeed to have spoken to the media as some kind of spokesman for the Home Secretary. It definitely demoralises civil servants if they think there is that kind of influence.
	Every special adviser should be under duties in a statute. I hope that when the Government at last publish their draft Bill, they will support the suggestion made repeatedly by our first-class First Civil Service Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, that a Joint Select Committee be set up to consider that draft and the draft of Tony Wright's public administration committee, and my own admirably concise little Bill. Such a committee would have the benefit of Members of this House who have such great experience as former Ministers, civil servants and special advisers.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach for initiating this important debate. I join all noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, on two outstanding maiden speeches. We look forward very much to hearing them on other occasions. They spoke passionately today and with the depth of experience that they bring to this House.
	It is left to my noble friend Lord Griffiths to enable us to debate the Civil Service because no such debate has ever taken place on a government-sponsored Civil Service Bill. There are conflicting views on such a Bill—but the wounding experiences of recent years have probably made it inevitable. So I can confirm to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden that my right honourable friend Mr Howard has said that he will introduce a Bill as one of the first actions of the next Conservative government: to limit numbers of political advisers; to reinforce the Civil Service code of conduct; and to make it unlawful for anyone other than a Minister or a more senior civil servant to instruct officials.
	It is widely recognised that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has his Bill and on this issue he is absolutely right: we have had more government promises on the Civil Service than—dare I say it?—Penelope's suitors heard in all 20 years of Ulysses' absence at the wars. We cannot let things drift further.
	I served in four different government departments. In each I was served by a clearly impartial service; indeed, one department gave me perfect Cabinet committee folders providing me with the cast-iron case against the rock solid arguments prepared for me in my preceding department. With little exaggeration Peter Hennessey has said:
	"a politically disinterested civil service with core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next, was 'the greatest gift of the 19th century to the 20th'".
	Thanks to that we have never had the prolonged and painful translation of power that dislocates government in some European countries and those modelled on the US system.
	My noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree said he remembered the start of the Conservative government in 1979; and I well recall the end of the last Conservative government. I also remember—vividly and without a shred of resentment—the enthusiasm with which many senior civil servants then looked forward to the challenge of serving a new government, tackling new problems in new ways, but, most importantly, with the same loyalty. It was, I think, a gross error of judgment on new Labour's part that the same civil servants who clapped in new Ministers in May 1997 found themselves sidelined six months later, while a new model army of special advisers and on-message strategic communicators crowded into each Cabinet Minister's kitchen.
	I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who said that it was a good thing that because of the Nolan rules Labour supporting Peers could no longer get public service jobs. You could have fooled me—when I look at the Benches opposite at Question Time. It is that lack of trust in the Civil Service that has hobbled this Government.
	I believe that new Labour never fully understood the central ethic of the Civil Service or the unique and irreplaceable place of convention in British national life. If it had, it would not have purged the information service or doubled numbers of special advisers or trebled their salaries, or given power to political hacks such as Mr Alastair Campbell to bully and boss civil servants around.
	The essential spirit of the Civil Service survives. So long as it is led by men such as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, it will do so. But the impact of new Labour has been greatly damaging to perceptions of the integrity of government as a whole. It is a terrible commentary on new Labour that it could take something of such undoubted integrity as our secret ballot and voting system and undermine trust in that too. Equally, it is a reproach to new Labour that it has not always shown trust and has undermined trust in administration. Was it right for civil servants to be sucked so closely into battles as politically charged as the case of Dr Kelly? I doubt it. The Government have too often blurred lines that should be clearly drawn. That is a culture the next government will have to reverse.
	We also need an end to double standards on official secrets. Ministers and advisers bypass Parliament and hand official secrets to the "Today" programme with impunity, but a whistle-blower who uncovers a glaring scandal rightly requiring the resignation of a Minister finds himself and his wife victimised. Will the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, tell us how many leak inquiries we have had since 1997 into impending government announcements being given out to the "Today" programme, and on how many occasions was the leaker identified?
	No government have been more partial than this in their use of power and patronage; and none as ruthless in upholding impartiality when a Sixsmith or a Kelly crosses their path. Now the heat is apparently on a former special adviser who portrays the relationship between Mr Blair and Mr Brown as akin to the one between Captain Hook and the crocodile. Ludicrous—as if the Prime Minister ever hears a clock ticking when he sees Gordon Brown. But it was not a civil servant who wrote this book, it was a special adviser. He writes a book not economical enough with the truth and Sir Andrew Turnbull—the Cabinet Secretary, no less—has to try to rewrite it. Some 16 years ago in Australia, one Turnbull was fighting to get Spycatcher published; now today in Britain another Turnbull is fighting to stop "Browncatcher".
	Few governments have been as open to ridicule on this subject as this one, but the issue of encroachment on the impartiality of the Civil Service introduced to us today by my noble friend is deadly serious. So, too, is the growing size of the Civil Service. The Government are addicted to control, bureaucracy, targetry, quangos, boards for this, and plans for that. They are for ever building haystacks of databases and regulation in which, frequently, lethal needles are hidden and lost.
	They are also incapable of holding to any steady policy course. Consider the lurches on asylum; the constant reorganisations of the health service; the flip-flops on tax credits; Bill after Bill before your Lordships' House made up and altered as they go along. The centralising philosophy inevitably leads to a growth in the numbers in the public service. The inconsistency of ministerial guidance—government by tactics not strategy—puts an enormous strain on the public service, which I, for one, marvel that it has been able to sustain.
	The Gershon report, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Griffiths and many others, has exposed the scale of the waste of resources perpetrated by this Government in the past seven years. That has been caused by the constantly changing and centralising policies. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, compared it to a competition between two political parties—I do not think that it is that. I think that it is a recognition of the frustration that people feel, not just in business, but working in the public service; teachers in schools, doctors and nurses in the health service, people who work in local authorities who are deeply frustrated and concerned by the growth of a bureaucracy and a culture of box-ticking that makes them unable to do their jobs.
	Gershon estimates, and the Treasury is said to agree, that up to 80,000 public servants are not needed. If that is so, at a rough, average cost per head of some £30,000 a year, this Government are spending £2.5 billion a year that they do not need to spend. That is perhaps £10 billion down the river since the last election. How many hospitals, how many schools, how many widows' mites taken away in tax and chucked down the drain? I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whose speech I enjoyed and who has done so much for the reputation of the Civil Service, that I did not say what I have just said in order to vilify dedicated public servants. I am simply saying that the public service can be thinned.
	My noble friend Lord Griffiths and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, told us how the last Conservative government reduced the scale of centralised administration. The next Conservative government will do the same. But as we do so, we will build on the integrity, the probity and the impartiality of the central Civil Service. We will affirm in legislation how we value that, and we will give those who serve Ministers a far clearer, more effective and consistent lead than this Government have ever done.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have greatly enjoyed this afternoon's debate, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for instigating it. It has been wide-ranging, stimulating and of great interest. It has been adorned graciously by two excellent maiden speeches. The speech made by the noble and nearly gallant Lord, Lord Garden, was full of interesting thoughts and ideas, and I was most impressed by his pleas for diversity, which was a theme of the debate, and by his encouragement that the Civil Service should be open to the challenges of change. Those views were based on his experience.
	I also greatly enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lady Henig, who I have known for many years. I pay tribute to her not only for her comments today, but for her long and tireless work as a county councillor and as the lead councillor for the national Association of Police Authorities; and for her wit, which she displayed to us today and which I am sure she will display on many other occasions in your Lordships' House. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will bring their vast experience to the benefit of us all.
	It is not often that we have a debate about a subject in which people plead their previous experience in the way in which they have today. I counted at least three special advisers and at least one very excellent professional adviser, in the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. We benefited greatly from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and his insights into the way in which the Civil Service works. We heard ex-Ministers confessing their pasts and drawing our attention to one of the most important features of public life in this country—the Civil Service, with its independence, impartiality and strong commitment to the public service ethic.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, diligent as ever in her role as the First Civil Service Commissioner, was right to remind us that it is a national asset and we should at our peril enter the territory of benign neglect. That would be a great tragedy indeed. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. His emphasis on the importance of the adaptability of the Civil Service was not mistaken. That theme was recurrent during the debate.
	As always, I greatly enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and his rumbustious attack on government policy. I expected no less from him. It is not a description that I recognise of the way in which this Government have worked with the Civil Service over the past seven years, but it was uniquely his own, and he gave an important commitment that a Conservative government in the future might introduce a Civil Service Bill. I will come to that later in my comments.
	The Government's approach in general to the Civil Service is this: we believe that it should be fit for purpose, as described by many Members of your Lordships' House in this debate, and that it must have the right skills and experience to do its job. For that reason, we have concentrated on a reform programme that goes hand in hand with maintaining and reinforcing what many would recognise today as the traditional Civil Service values of integrity, impartiality and appointment on merit. Those go back to Northcote-Trevelyan. Both of those are integral to the Government's approach. A recent World Bank survey gave the UK a 97.7 percentile rating for "government effectiveness", which is a tribute to the Civil Service, ranking us alongside the best that the OECD has to offer. The UK Civil Service has at its core a strong set of values, as I have said, of impartiality, integrity and honesty. Those values were praised from all sides of your Lordships' House this afternoon.
	We are world leaders on this front, and many countries look to us, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, for leadership and as an example. We are talking about a high-performing organisation, not one that is failing. I share the view that was expressed by many that we should not talk down the achievement of our Civil Service; it would be a dangerous course if we did. Nevertheless, the Civil Service has faced considerable pressure to change over recent years. I can identify two causes for that.
	First, as the world changes, the Civil Service must move too. Globalisation, technological innovation and migration all throw up new challenges and additional demands. The Civil Service must be in a position to adapt and respond quickly to that. That point was echoed neatly by my noble friend Lady Henig.
	Secondly, we also have rising public expectations. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, was right when he talked about changes in the way in which people approach public service and their interest in and demand for choice. That is now part of the common currency of debate as we approach the next general election. Citizens are demanding better from public services. The Government have responded by substantially increasing investment in the public sector and by laying out ambitious plans for reform so that public services are centred on customers' needs. The Civil Service is playing a lead role in delivering that fundamental change.
	For that reason, the Government place a great deal of emphasis on Civil Service reform. The Prime Minister has directly engaged in this agenda, and gave his views on it in a speech just a week ago. The recently established Civil Service reform programme board, chaired by Sir Andrew Turnbull, the head of the Home Civil Service, reports directly to the Prime Minister. The board will monitor progress on each element of the reform programme and will press for improvements where performance is lacking.
	There are three basic elements to the reform programme: people; departments; and the centre. First, the people element: tomorrow's civil servants must be more flexible, more effective and more professional—a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made. Effective leadership is critical if the service is to meet the demands of the future. We have taken a number of initiatives to improve leadership capacity. We have improved our leadership training; we have introduced a high potential development scheme to develop those identified as having the potential to reach the very top. We have introduced new expectations for continual improvement in the performance of senior civil servants, and staff who deliver results on the ground will be rewarded while those not making the grade will have to address the causes of that. We have introduced a new norm of four-year postings for senior civil servants to ensure that people stay long enough to deliver priorities but not so long that they become stale and complacent.
	We need to move away from the myth that the talented generalist can fill any role in the Civil Service—a model that has perhaps been of lesser relevance down the years. Now, we need a more concerted approach to professionalising the whole of the service. This includes services such as finance, IT, human resources and project management. Policy development and delivery also need expert skills. We want to open up the Civil Service to talent from outside, while also providing better training and development opportunities and different and better career paths for those already in the service.
	The second element of the reform is fit-for-purpose departments. In this, the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Lipsey, made important points. We need to ensure that what we have for the future is fit for purpose. Each department is being asked to think about how it needs to change as an organisation in order to deliver high quality public services.
	The Prime Minister is working directly with a number of departments to develop five-year strategies to build a clearer understanding of their strategic purpose and of their priority objectives. Departments have also been thinking about the type and location of the workforce they need to deliver their objectives.
	Increasingly, we should see departments pushing resources out to the front line, while creating smaller, more strategic, headquarters. Each department's priorities for change are set out in the performance partnership agreement between it and the centre.
	This brings me to the importance of an effective centre of government. This is where the third and final Civil Service reform work stream comes in. The centre—Her Majesty's Treasury, the Cabinet Office and No. 10—needs to be resourced to support departmental change, as well as to challenge and drive that change forward. To ensure that departments have access to the best tools to deliver their business, the centre is developing centres of excellence. These will provide a driving force for these essential professional disciplines and will be a source of support to them. They reflect the core corporate functions each department needs. The centres of excellence are: strategy; people management; marketing and communications; IT; delivery and performance monitoring; procurement; project management; financial management; and efficiency.
	It would be wrong if I did not talk more about efficiency and the efficiency review. The Government are committed to improving public sector efficiency. Where we can find them, we want to release resources, as all governments do, for further investment in public services. To this end, Sir Peter Gershon has carried out a review to identify efficiencies in public spending. That review will no doubt be most helpful.
	Building on the substantial investment agreed in the 2002 spending review, the review identified scope for efficiencies in the public sector's back office functions, as well as developing recommendations to increase the time professionals in the front line have available to serve the public directly. Sir Peter's review recommended an ambitious target to deliver efficiencies of 2.5 per cent a year over the three years of the 2004 spending review period. Meeting this target would deliver efficiency gains equivalent to £20 billion a year by 2007–08. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, was right to say this was challenging. But it is the job of government to be challenging, and to adopt and accept and take up those challenges. That is what we wish to see.
	Departments that have worked with Sir Peter and other stakeholders to develop efficiency programmes will be announced as part of the spending review. After these announcements have been made, John Oughton, chief executive of the Office of Government Commerce, will take responsibility for ensuring effective implementation and delivery of efficiencies by departments.
	Complementing the efficiency review, Sir Michael Lyons has also led a study into the scope for relocating a substantial number of public sector activities from London and the south-east of England to other parts of the United Kingdom. That report has identified up to 20,000 jobs that could be taken out of the south-east for wider dispersal as a first tranche. The Government have accepted Sir Michael's report as a sound basis for future dispersal of public sector activity away from London.
	Much of our debate focused on the independence of the Civil Service and what it meant. The Government are determined to maintain the political impartiality and integrity of the Civil Service. That is the view that we have taken consistently since coming to office. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, in publishing the Government's response to the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
	"A strong, effective, politically impartial civil service is a great national asset".
	As the House knows, in response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Government committed themselves to publishing a draft Civil Service Bill for consultation. Nearly all those who took part in the debate called for that. We are grateful to the Select Committee on Public Administration for its draft Bill. Together with the work undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who has produced his own Bill, it has provided helpful source material for our work.
	Drafting of the government Bill and the consultation papers is under way, with the objective of publishing our proposals for consultation during this parliamentary Session. Given the work that is going on, I shall not be drawn today to respond with a detailed analysis of the likely content of the legislation. The Government are mindful, however, that both Houses will take a close interest in the draft Bill. The Government accept that it concerns an important constitutional issue, and there will be full consultation with both Houses, as well as with the Civil Service and others with an interest. However, detailed decisions about the form of that consultation have yet to be taken. I have heard what has been said on that matter today.
	Many of those who participated in the debate drew attention to the position of special advisers and expressed views on their role. We have heard such criticism before, but I remind the House that there is substantial agreement, some of which was expressed in the debate today, about the valuable role that special advisers can play. In its evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the First Division Association said:
	"The FDA has made the point in our evidence and separately that the special adviser system is a good one; it is an asset . . . special advisers are an asset to the civil service; they are an asset to Ministers".
	The independent review of government communications made similar points. We hold that view, as did the ninth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
	Of course, it is important that special advisers observe the highest standards of conduct. I remind the House that the Government introduced a model contract for special advisers, which sets out clear, transparent terms and conditions for their employment, and a code of conduct for special advisers that the Select Committee on Public Administration described in 2001 as,
	"a clear statement of the role of advisers and a helpful strengthening of the protection provided to the neutrality of civil servants".
	Our track record on that is a strong one. No doubt, views will be expressed on the matter in the future, and we will have more discussion and debate.
	In the past two centuries, there have been at least three major reforms of our Civil Service: the Northcote-Trevelyan report; the Haldane report in 1918; and the Fulton report in 1968. Each was, by any reckoning, a major milestone in the history of the Civil Service, but there has never been a Civil Service Bill. As the present Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, said earlier this year, we have lived without one for 150 years. We accept the case for a Civil Service Bill, and we are taking our time to bring forward legislation that will be fit for purpose.
	I repeat my opening remarks: the Government place the highest importance on maintaining a strong, politically impartial Civil Service that is fit for purpose and equipped to deliver. For the reasons that I have given, the Government place great emphasis on Civil Service reform, but, as we take the work forward, no one should be in any doubt about our commitment to uphold the highest standards of propriety in our conduct of government.

Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, all that remains for me to do is to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. There have been a huge number of speeches, but they have all been by heavyweight speakers. I congratulate the two people who have given maiden speeches. I have known the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for more than 40 years, as my wife had the privilege of being in the same sixth-form class as her in school, but I had never met her or heard her speak until today. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, gave a most authoritative speech. The humour and intellectual curiosity of both speeches were terrific.
	As I listened, I thought what a privilege it is for this House to have new Members with such experience of public service and such lively minds. On behalf of everyone in the House, I say to the new Members that we look forward very much to hearing them in future. I thank also the Minister for his response to this Motion and, in particular, for his defence and upholding of the values of the Civil Service and its independence. I am especially grateful for the fact that the Government have now got to the stage of drafting something that we will see during this Session. That is great news. Across all parties and all Benches, I think that we would all applaud them for that. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will forgive me. In the previous debate, the Minister did not get his full time to reply. Perhaps I may point out to noble Lords that in the debate standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, there is one minute to spare. Any other time will be taken from the Minister.

Energy Supply

Lord Jenkin of Roding: rose to call attention to the future energy supply of the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, energy supply is an extremely complex subject. I am gratified by the number of noble Lords who have expressed a wish to speak in the debate. In my speech, I intend to concentrate on just three issues; namely, to discuss what is undoubtedly the deepening anxiety about the security of the United Kingdom's future energy supplies.
	I want then to explore what I see as a very big hole in the Government's policies; namely, the conflict between the White Paper's professed pursuit of security of supply and that same White Paper's targets for cutting greenhouse gases. Finally, I shall draw attention to the growing awareness that a major part of the solution to both those problems lies with the nuclear industry. Of course, that is not the only part, and I strongly commend an article in today's Financial Times by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley. It is not so much, as the White Paper says at paragraph 4.68, that,
	"future new nuclear build might be necessary".
	The real question for today's debate is whether and when the Government will recognise that it will be necessary.
	I turn now to a couple of fundamental facts. First, for the first time in our history the UK will, in a very few years, cease to be self-sufficient in overall energy. As our own continental shelf runs down, as our elderly coal-fired power stations are faced with stringent new EU emissions targets, as existing nuclear reactors reach the end of their lives and are closed, it is the Government's policy to fill the gap with a combination of renewables, energy efficiency and a rapidly increasing supply of imported gas.
	By 2020, it is reckoned that 90 per cent of our gas will come from abroad—much of it over great distances—from unstable regions and through vulnerable pipelines. We will also need to import more and more oil. Recent events in Saudi Arabia must give grounds for anxiety on that score.
	Secondly, few now seriously challenge the case for fighting global warming by cutting greenhouse gases. One only needs to see the recent pictures of meltwater cascading off the vast Arctic ice sheet to understand that that dramatically underlines that this is an imperative. On that, the White Paper seems to get it right. It is against that background of a rising energy gap, to be met by imports and the imperative of cutting greenhouse gases, that policy must be judged.
	With regard to security of supply, I shall start by looking at the short term; say, the next two to three years. It seems to be the accepted wisdom of the DTI, Ofgem and National Grid Transco that, given any but the most extreme winter conditions, there would be sufficient margins for gas and electricity supply and transmission to meet likely demand. I have spoken to a great number of people and for many of them that has appeared to be unduly complacent.
	In relation to gas, last week's EU Select Committee report—at paragraphs 105 and 106, page 38—states:
	"It is clear, therefore, that the demand/supply balance required to meet . . . winter demand over the next two years . . . will be tight . . . A severe winter could cause serious concern".
	When we expressed concern to the Minister about coverage for the next two winters, Mr Timms replied:
	"My answer would be that the capacity we need is not yet in the bag but I am confident it will be in the bag in time for those demands arising over the next two winters".
	I see the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, in his place. It is not surprising that, on introducing his report to the press, he said that his committee was "unconvinced".
	More alarming still was the disclosure that a terrorist attack on either of the two terminals at St Fergus in Scotland or at Bacton in Norfolk,
	"could produce a national emergency for which the Government would have to assume immediate responsibility".
	Ministers have only just received this report. I shall therefore leave it there, except to add that complacency in the face of that judgment seems to be singularly out of place.
	In the longer term, electricity generating capacity gives the real cause for concern. Renewables will make a small contribution. Energy efficiency may help over time, but there will have to be a substantial investment in new generating capacity to replace power stations that are closed. The Government's response is that,
	"markets will fill the gap".
	But what is that market? It is the essentially short-term market that is regulated by Ofgem under NETA—new electricity trading arrangements—which, soon, under the Energy Bill, is to become BETTA.
	Here, I must refer back to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, in a very important debate that we had in January. He expressed great apologies for being unable to take part in today's debate. In a powerful critique of this policy, he said:
	"Ofgem seeks to devise market controls that are essentially short-term, and DTI, through a wealth of advisory bodies, seeks to peer into the future.
	"In a long-term and capital-intensive industry, that does not provide a satisfactory framework for development".—[Official Report, 7/1/04; col. 212.]
	The noble Lord continued by describing the situation as a "worrying one". But to many of those who have studied the problem that is a considerable understatement.
	Yes, a market based on short-term prices and short-term costs can influence and, indeed, has influenced short-term investment decisions. For instance, rising prices led to de-mothballing plant in order to bring it back into service. But that takes only six to nine months. This system of short-term regulation cannot promote long-term investment decisions. The timescale for those decisions may well be 10 or 15 years before reaching production.
	So I would argue that the present system of regulation is deeply flawed. Unless decisions are taken soon to change it, I have a real fear that in the medium term, and still more in the longer term, we may find ourselves—in the current phrase—unable to keep the lights on. I have spoken to a number of those who invest and who finance investment in major projects such as new generating capacity, and they tell me that the uncertainties inherent in the present short-term regulatory system make it very difficult to embark on long-term investment projects. I look forward to hearing an answer from the Minister addressing this problem—as we did not get one on 7 January—because it is very acute.
	I turn next to greenhouse gases. Ministers make much of the policy of investment in renewables to achieve their White Paper CO2 targets. But even if those targets are met—and there are many both inside and outside the industry who seriously doubt that—they will do no more than replace the loss of CO2-free generation over the same period, especially, of course, from the retirement of carbon-free nuclear reactors. In other words, the CO2 targets are a sham; they cannot possibly be met, at least during the first quarter of this century.
	Ministers seem determined to ignore this, as instanced by the exchanges at Question Time two weeks ago on 15 June. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, is not in his place to defend himself, because there was an extraordinary exchange. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked whether the Minister agreed with the statement from the report, Tilting at Windmills, that,
	"because of the cost of providing additional stand-by generating capacity, it is unlikely that wind power will ever account for more than 20% of electricity generation through the National Grid. That being the case, its development can make no substantial contribution to a reduction in carbon emissions from power generation".
	In answering, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said:
	"My Lords, I thought that that was one of the more useless statements. A little mathematics applied to that will tell us that if it provides 20 per cent of the generating capacity it will deal with 20 per cent of the generating capacity problem".—[Official Report, 15/6/04; col. 617–18.]
	That was nonsense. The noble Lord made no attempt to answer the question put by his noble friend Lord Williams. The Minister totally confused the targets for CO2 reduction with the targets for renewables. During the passage of the Energy Bill, we have seen that over and over again. These are two separate issues and they need to be addressed separately.
	Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, used the occasion yet again to rubbish a well respected report by an acknowledged expert, and I have to say that one of the least attractive characteristics of this present Government is their open contempt for any views which do not happen to fit their own.
	I come to my last point: how can the UK achieve its double objectives—keeping the lights on while at the same time cutting greenhouse gases? Over the past two years there have been a number of well researched and authoritative reports from respected sources arguing that the only way to do this will be to build new nuclear power stations. They include the Royal Society, the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institution of Civil Engineers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Wood Mackenzie and, most recently, the David Hume Institute. They are supported by acknowledged experts such as Professor Ian Fells, Professor Sir Alec Broers, Professor M A Laughton, and, let it be said, by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Sir David King. All those reports have been ignored by the Government.
	But there must be one recent comment that the Government cannot ignore. I come to Professor James Lovelock, the well known and highly respected Green campaigner. Writing in the Independent five weeks ago, he stated uncompromisingly that,
	"only one immediately available source [of electricity] does not cause global warming and that is nuclear energy".
	He went on to say:
	"Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media".
	Further on in the article he said:
	"I find it sad and ironic that the UK, which leads the world in the quality of its Earth and climate scientists, rejects their warnings and advice, and prefers to listen to the Greens. But I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy".
	James Lovelock is not just a straw in the wind, he is a mighty gust of realism and common sense, bravely articulating what more and more people are coming to recognise: climate change is the enemy, not nuclear power.
	It is now apparent that in this country opinion is moving in this direction, but it is also moving in many other countries. Nuclear plants are now being built in China, Korea, Taiwan and India. Nearer home, Finland and France have ordered new nuclear plants, and Sweden is expected to announce something soon. Even in anti-nuclear Canada, there are reports of moves to commission new nuclear plant. So what is preventing us doing the same over here?
	There is the argument about radioactive waste, although I have to say at this point that the real waste has been the waste of time on the part of the Government. They have wasted seven years in shilly-shallying, and only just under a year ago did they finally get around to appointing the Advisory Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. I have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who recognised that this has been a very long-delayed process. However, he went on to say that,
	"The committee is not expected to produce its report until towards the end of 2006".
	That is over two years from now. This further delay is wholly unacceptable. The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology is to conduct a swift inquiry into this matter, and I hope that we will question this extremely dilatory timetable.
	Then there is the argument about cost. This entirely ignores all the latest information on both the costs of new build and what have been dramatic improvements in the outputs from nuclear plant. As it happens, only yesterday the All-Party Group on Nuclear Energy met and we were given the figures. The eight most recent nuclear plants were built to schedule and within cost estimates. World efficiencies have increased from below 60 per cent to over 90 per cent, and that includes Sizewell B. The figures from the Royal Academy of Engineering show that nuclear power, including decommissioning costs, were comparable with those of gas-fired combined cycle turbines.
	So we are left with the Government's doctrinaire opposition to nuclear power, and at the moment that is the real obstacle. But if we are to keep the lights on and, at the same time, make a genuine attack on global warming, Ministers must swallow their outdated prejudices. In quoting from the Government White Paper, it is no longer the case that,
	"future new nuclear build might be necessary".
	It has to be that new nuclear build "will" be necessary, and it is not a moment too soon to start. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the Motion this afternoon calls attention to the future energy supply of the United Kingdom but, whatever choice we make, it will not affect only this country. This is now a worldwide issue. We have come to understand that climate change is a global matter and we need worldwide solutions to ensure that the change in our climate is minimal.
	The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that there is an irrational fear of the development of nuclear power. I hope to address in my remarks the fact that it is not an irrational fear, but a rational one. Were the noble Lord to be right—that nuclear power could be generated entirely free of radioactive waste that we could not address; free from accidents that would not happen; and free from terrorism, which is a new threat—I would agree that the future might indeed be nuclear. But I believe that we are far from reaching that happy state, if it were ever to be reached.
	The noble Lord listed the countries in which nuclear plants are currently being built. Unless we solve the three issues of waste, accident and terrorism, this country will have an even more fundamental duty to show clearly what alternatives there are to nuclear power and how they may be achieved.
	It is in this area that the Government have made a large mistake. Although I support their drive to develop wind power, they seem to have put all their eggs into one basket and are not developing other forms of renewable energy, which would probably be far more productive in the long run. They seem to be concentrating on developing wind power, both offshore and on land.
	Wind power has a part to play in relation to renewable energy, but I find it a depressing spectacle in your Lordships' House when Question Time descends into a low-level debate about wind power and its effect on the landscape. It is of course a serious issue but, with respect to noble Lords, I feel that we come down to the lowest common denominator when debating the subject. For that reason, I especially welcome today's debate; I hope that we will examine the issue in more depth. I look forward to hearing from noble Lords who have more experience in this field than I have. Certainly the energy question is worthy of far more serious and considered debate than we have given it.
	If we believe that future energy production needs to be sustainable—I know that is a much over-used word and I shall try to define it—we must be clear where the solutions currently on offer fail. "Sustainability" includes environmental considerations. That means that we need energy which produces minimal climate change; so we are looking for something which produces low or no carbon emissions. The environmental considerations also include waste that cannot be dealt with. I do not believe that we have moved on very far from the Nirex report, which highlighted many of the reasons why waste cannot be dealt with. I shall return to this issue later.
	There also has to be economic sustainability, so the energy must come at a price which is acceptable to society. However, I suggest that cheap electricity is not cheap when the cost of its production is offloaded in the form of environmental hazards, health hazards or an appalling, unsustainable imports bill.
	It is interesting that energy is the area of life where—if your Lordships will excuse the pun—people feel most disempowered. They know that climate change is a threat but they feel that there is very little they can do about it at the moment apart from purchasing energy-saving light bulbs and possibly switching to suppliers of green electricity, some of which are good, some not so green.
	The Government need to address much more fundamentally the way in which people can begin to change their lifestyles. Although the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned in passing that people might take advantage of energy-saving products, there has been no lead from the Government in encouraging investment in design and technology. To me, it seems quite simple. For example, televisions remain on standby; computers remain on standby. Such appliances could be designed to turn off entirely if they are not being used. We have all heard that the nation leaving its televisions on standby overnight is equal to the output of one of the power stations proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. If that is true, why is this kind of design initiative not a requirement? Lifestyle changes are more difficult but can be achieved.
	The old-style solution to our desire for a temperate climate is to have air conditioning in summer and heating in winter. But there are innovative new systems—some of which the Government have had a hand in designing—that circulate air around a building, heating from ground pumps in winter and cooling from the same pumps in summer. So it is possible, but the information is not filtering through to the general population.
	I do not believe that we can follow the bad example of Italy by building more and more power stations. I believe it was announced today that Italy is to build 24 new fossil fuel power stations, undermining EU efforts to cut carbon emissions. Can the Minister comment on how the Government feel about that?
	There is a role for government in encouraging the harnessing of new technologies and design. In evidence recently given to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, the DTI official, Ms Durkin, said:
	"I would like to say to the Committee that if we are to reach the 2020 aspiration"—
	of cutting carbon emissions—
	"we really need to diversify. We will not be looking to reach the 2020 mark target aspiration just on wind. We will be seeking to diversify".
	Seeking simply is not good enough. We need to be moving faster.
	The academic world is certainly pulling its weight. There are very interesting studies being carried out at the moment. Sussex University is reviewing the technical, regulatory and institutional changes needed to enable the large-scale uptake of micro-generation and the implications for the relationships between energy consumers, energy companies and housing providers. That is exactly the kind of empowerment of the population to which I referred.
	Stafford University is examining the development of community-oriented energy initiatives within national policy and the private sector. The failure to engage communities is the reason for the political exploitation of the wind power issue; communities are not attached to their wind turbines in the way they should be. I believe that that is a fundamental failure of the Government.
	During the passage of the Energy Bill I called on the Government to do more to up their game on energy advice to households, but very little has happened. They have introduced the Clear Skies initiative, but the eligibility criteria that an applicant has to meet mean that so many people fall outside the net that it beggars belief. An applicant must be the owner of the property. So no one who rents a property—even if they will be renting it for their lifetime—can do anything about it. The applicant must not dwell in a mobile home. While we are upgrading the rights of mobile home owners in the forthcoming Housing Bill, I hope the DTI will consider including mobile home owners in the list of those eligible for grants.
	Let me return to the nuclear issue. As I said, as far as I can see, we have not really moved on from the Nirex inquiry in 1996. That inquiry established that we do not have the science to keep nuclear waste isolated from human communities for the hundreds of thousands of years needed. We can expect a vast increase of 500,000 tonnes of radioactive nuclear waste to have accumulated by the end of this century from existing nuclear power stations alone. That is before the new stations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, have been built.
	The waste problem still has not been solved. We have only recently established—indeed, the Bill has not yet finished its passage through Parliament—the agency tasked with addressing the issue. So it is far too soon to talk of building new nuclear power stations.
	As to the problem of accidents, the Environment Agency has been taking BNFL to task for various failures over time. There is a deadline of 31 July 2004 for BNFL to review its pipeline design. Can the Minister say whether that review is on track and whether it will be reported? It was an Environment Agency requirement that followed on from a number of failures that I shall not list now.
	It is very hard to overcome human error. Those who met the party of schoolchildren from Chernobyl in your Lordships' House last week will have had a stark reminder of where error and design fault can lead. They lead to a much bigger catastrophe in the case of nuclear than in any other form of energy production.
	Finally, the potential for nuclear, in all its forms, to be a target for terrorist attacks hardly bears thinking about, but thought about it must be if noble Lords are talking about building new nuclear power stations.
	I do not support the noble Lord's proposition that we must have new nuclear power stations. I task the Government with thinking about how to use design and innovation to bring about the sort of change we need.

Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the very important question of energy supply and also for giving us such a comprehensive and interesting review of events leading up to the present situation.
	In the past, we have been fortunate in having an abundance of fossil fuels, but as they become depleted it is necessary to find alternatives to coal and gas, which have played such an important part in providing our power generation. However, importing oil and gas is a very different matter. As we discovered before we had access to North Sea oil and gas, interruption of supplies in the past were numerous—the Suez crisis, the Iranian revolution, the Arab oil embargo. In the future, we are liable to have problems in Iraq and in Saudi Arabia, and one hopes they will be minor. Who knows? Certainly there can be no guarantee of an uninterrupted supply.
	Electricity is of paramount importance to our future prosperity—indeed, to our very existence—given that practically every aspect of daily life is dominated by the ability to switch on power. Without that facility, everything stops. Up until now, a highly efficient and satisfactory system has evolved, first through the use of coal and, more recently, with increasing use of oil, gas and nuclear power—the cleanest of all power generators, which provides approximately 25 per cent of our requirements.
	Since privatisation, £15 billion has been invested in our gas network, which has provided almost 30 per cent of all its consumption, to generate electricity. A further £16 billion has been invested in the distribution and transmission networks of the electricity industry. But by 2020 we shall depend to a very large extent on imported gas. In the opinion of Professor Gittus, of Lloyds of London Insurance Market, another three-day week would be more likely in the United Kingdom than in any of the other G8 countries.
	All in all, we have evolved a highly efficient system of power generation which it is imperative that we maintain. Therefore, a new satisfactory system must be devised to ensure that there is an easy transfer from one source of generation to another. Professor Gittus suggests a security of supply obligation, analogous to the renewables obligation, to ensure that our electricity is generated by reliable means.
	The Government have elected to replace the shortfall caused by the phasing out of coal, the depletion of our own resources of oil and gas and the approach of the end of the life of our existing nuclear reactors by a huge increase in the use of renewables—that is, wind, wave and solar power, with the main emphasis on wind power—along with dependence on imported oil and gas, a combination which is vulnerable to a host of problems and imponderables. The Government have stated that they have not ruled out the use of nuclear power at some future time, but they appear to put every conceivable obstacle in the way of such a route being followed.
	I shall return to the advantages of the nuclear solution shortly, but first let us look at the folly of the course on which the Government have embarked. I make no apology if I reiterate some of the points that have already been made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. In the political world in which we live, we all know that you have to say things over and over again before anybody really takes notice.
	By 2020, only 16 years from now, we shall have depleted our oil and gas reserves. Long before then, we shall be dependent on large quantities of gas and oil imported from eastern Europe, the Middle East and Africa, any one of which could be cut off for political reasons or terrorist activities. Norway may provide temporary relief, but at what price, and at the mercy of whatever depletion policy the Norwegians favour at that time? The Government have completely overlooked the fact that renewables are wholly dependent on weather conditions being favourable to enable them to produce power. Here I come to the association with the environment.
	In order to meet our Kyoto commitment, we must reduce our CO2 emissions. The penalties of not doing so are alarming in the extreme. In a most interesting article in the Independent newspaper of 24 May this year, Michael McCarthy quotes Professor James Lovelock—my noble friend has already referred to this—the celebrated green guru, to the effect that there is simply not enough time for renewable energy to take the place of coal, gas and oil-fired power stations, whose waste carbon dioxide is causing the atmosphere to warm. He is particularly concerned about the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels substantially, and the episode of extreme heat in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as unprecedented and a direct result of global warming. These, he says, are ominous global warnings that climate change is speeding, but many people are still in ignorance of this. He is rightly critical of the United States Government for having failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed.
	Furthermore, Professor Lovelock says that only a massive expansion of nuclear power which produces no CO2 can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas.
	In an interesting talk that I attended recently, Mr John Ritch, the director general of the World Nuclear Association, said that nuclear power was not just an option but an imperative. Some of his arguments were similar to those used by Professor Lovelock. He felt that no energy strategy was realistic without nuclear, and he said that in the next 50 years, more energy will be required by the world than all that has been used to date in order to avoid a global crisis of monumental proportions. This cannot be delivered without nuclear power.
	Of course, Professor Lovelock and Mr Ritch are by no means alone in their belief in nuclear power. We have only to cast our eyes across the Channel to see what has been achieved in France, where the Prime Minister has already announced the Government's intention to commence the building of a new European pressurised water reactor later this year. This is part of a 30-year energy plan that will ensure the future of the French nuclear industry which already provides more than 70 per cent of France's electricity. Electricité de France wants to press ahead because more than half of its nuclear stations are due to retire by 2020. France is keen to follow Finland's example in building the first EPR.
	Therefore, I do not argue that renewables do not have a place in the generation of power, but I do argue that the Government are being extremely unwise in the task that they have set for them. It is an impossible task. Furthermore, there is considerable doubt whether there are not cheaper and more effective methods of achieving that target. There are nearly 450 nuclear reactors either in operation or under construction in the world. Fifty years ago, Britain was at the forefront of nuclear development; today, France and Japan have taken over that role.
	Today, many of our most successful reactors are coming to the end of their lives. One such is the Chapelcross Magnox reactor, which has operated reliably and safely for 46 years. The local trade unions are lobbying the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh and the United Kingdom Government here to replace the reactor with Nuclear-Chapelcross 2. They say that it could be covered by the existing site licence and that it would enjoy the support of the whole of the local community. Indeed, sites are not a problem. The existing site licences could easily be continued if the Government indicated that they would consider the replacement of nuclear with nuclear if applications were made for new reactors.
	A recent assessment by the Royal Academy of Engineering on the cost of generating electricity showed that after taking account of probable increases in the price of gas and the effects of carbon trading, nuclear would be the lowest cost option, but it is doubtful if this Government have the bottle to follow that course. The Government must rethink their overall nuclear policy and reconsider the huge potential of new nuclear reactors of modern design if the most serious energy crisis of all time is to be avoided.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, I shall speak about one narrow but important issue: radiation and safety. The advantages of nuclear power are clear and have been powerfully expounded by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin of Roding and Lord Gray. It is a clean source of energy and does not emit greenhouse gases. The main opposition to nuclear power, as my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer has articulated, is based on fears about its safety. People are frightened about the risk of accidents and the dangers of radiation emanating from nuclear power stations and from nuclear waste. Those fears are profoundly misplaced. I am sorry to say that I very much disagree with my noble friend, for whose views I normally have the greatest respect.
	Present-day policies for radiation safety are based on the so-called "linear no-threshold" assumption. That is the assumption that any amount of radiation is harmful; that any dose, even the lowest, may cause cancer and genetic harm; and that the risk of harm increases proportionately with the dose. On that basis, it follows that we should avoid any exposure at all. As a result, the standards for radiation protection have become ever tighter and the maximum exposure dose declared to be safe by the International Commission for Radiological Protection has been constantly lowered.
	The standard measurement of radiation levels, as all of your Lordships are no doubt keenly aware, is set in millisieverts per year. In the 1920s, the maximum dose that was regarded as safe was 700 millisieverts; by 1941, it was reduced to 70 millisieverts; by the 1990s, it became 20 millisieverts for occupationally exposed people and one millisievert for the general population. The maximum dose now proposed is between 0.3 and 0.01 millisieverts.
	Unfortunately, those standards are not based on evidence. The evidence shows that the effect of radiation on human health is not linear but a J-curve when dose is plotted against effect. Exposure starts by being beneficial at low doses and becomes harmful only at higher doses. That effect is known as hormesis. A low dose of ionising radiation seems to stimulate DNA repair and appears to enhance the immune system, thereby providing a measure of protection against cancer. In fact, the beneficial effects of low doses of radiation in treating cancer have been known for some time and are confirmed by a mass of evidence, particularly in Japan. All the evidence contradicts the linear no-threshold assumption.
	A similar hormesis effect is found in many other cases and some of the examples will be well known to your Lordships. A bit of sunshine does you good; too much may cause cancer. Small doses of aspirin have a variety of beneficial effects, but too much will kill you. The same is said to be true of red wine and it also appears to apply to arsenic, cadmium, dioxins and pesticide residues, but that is another story.
	Epidemiological evidence strongly confirms hormesis. Your Lordships will recall the prediction that there would be terrible after-effects from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the survivors and their children. That was universally believed. Similarly, it was widely predicted that the incidence of cancer would greatly increase and that there would be massive genetic damage to future generations as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. The latter changed people's perception of the danger of nuclear energy all over the world. It is constantly cited as an illustration of the unparalleled threat to health from nuclear disasters.
	Yet those doom-laden predictions have been proved false. What are the facts? Extensive Japanese studies of the life expectancy of survivors of the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who suffered relatively low amounts of radiation, show that their life expectancy turned out to be higher than those of the control group. No unusual genetic defects have been found in their children.
	The horrific accident at Chernobyl was about as bad an accident to a nuclear power station as it is possible to imagine. Tragically, it led to 28 deaths among rescue workers, who were exposed to very high doses of radiation. However, in areas near Chernobyl, the extra amount of radiation to which people were exposed in the nine years following the accident was slight: an increase of 0.8 to 1.4 millisieverts per year. In the Ukrainian town of Pripyat, which is now a ghost town after its complete evacuation, the average amount of persistent radiation found in May 2001 was five times lower than the level in Grand Central Station in New York.
	Similarly, a follow-up study of Japanese fishermen who suffered from contamination of plutonium after the nuclear tests at Bikini found, 25 years later, that none of them had died of cancer. In fact, there is very strong evidence that people exposed to low doses of radiation by amounts which are still 100 times or more greater than the minimum recommended actually benefit. The incidence of thyroid cancer among children under 15 exposed to fall-out from Chernobyl was many times lower than the normal incidence of thyroid cancer among Finnish children. The death rate from leukaemia of nuclear industry workers in Canada is 68 per cent lower than the average. Workers in nuclear shipyards and other nuclear establishments in the United States and other countries have been found to have substantially lower death rates from cancer in general than the average and very much lower ones from leukaemia. Further, a mass of evidence shows that people who live in areas which are unusually high in natural radiation—in Japan, China, India and the United States—have significantly lower death rates from cancer than the average.
	My sources, I should mention, are an article from Dr Jaworowski, a former chairman of the United Nations scientific committee on the effects of atomic radiation, in a recent book of essays entitled Environment and Health; a paper on radiation hormesis by Professor Mortazavi from Kyoto University, which comprehensively reviews the scientific literature; and another comprehensive Canadian study by Jerry Cuttler on the beneficial effects of ionising radiation. There is a mass of papers that confirm that evidence.
	Those facts—and I challenge anyone to cite evidence that contradicts them—destroy many of the conventional objections to nuclear power. They also show that the regulations seeking to enforce present, let alone proposed, minimum standards not only cost billions of pounds but actually do more harm than good. But it is deemed politically incorrect to point out that the linear no-threshold thesis is not based on evidence.
	Perhaps it is time that we looked more closely at the phenomenon of hormesis and, in particular, at the successful Japanese experience of using low-dose radiation in the treatment of cancer patients. Above all, in approaching the question of nuclear power, we must be intellectually rigorous. We should have regard to evidence, evidence and evidence, and not allow evidence to be brushed aside by political correctness, ignorance or prejudice, nor allow policy to be dictated by pressure groups influenced by dogma instead of evidence.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot challenge or analyse in detail the contribution just made by my noble friend as he is clearly an expert in these matters and I am not. I would merely say that, while I do not share his enthusiasm for nuclear power, I nevertheless have great respect for his contributions on these matters, which certainly made us all think.
	I shall address a fairly narrow but increasingly important aspect of energy—the question of wind power and wind farms. I start by stating my own prejudices on this matter. As someone who spends a lot of time in the uplands of this country, partly because I live in the Pennines and partly because I go to other uplands in the United Kingdom as often as I can for recreational purposes, I do not like wind farms. I believe that they are an intrusion in our upland landscapes and that we should accept them only when there is really no alternative.
	It is a classic case of us all wanting to be as green as possible and as environmentally aware and committed as possible but of there being no easy answers. If the only way in which to tackle global warming, climate change and the enormous global as well as local environmental problems that climate change will no doubt cause is to cover areas of wilderness in Wales, northern England, the Lake District and Scotland with power stations and new industrial landscapes, some of us will find ourselves with very difficult issues and choices.
	I do not believe that the environmental lobby and the green lobby have really got to grips with the implications of such choices. It is all too easy to stand up and be a green campaigner; it is much more difficult to have to decide exactly what one is going to do.
	I am provided with some information by the British Mountaineering Council, which is working with the Mountaineering Council of Scotland. It tells me that there are currently 419 applications for new wind farms in Scotland, for obvious reasons. Some are small scale, and some are for up to 500 individual units or windmills, some of which are very large indeed—up to 500 feet high. There are clearly huge conflicts in wilderness areas such as those between the future of those areas as conservation areas, ecological areas or environmental areas and their future as tourism areas. Their economies will increasingly depend on tourism—on people such as myself going there for a weekend or a week—but we may be destroying the very landscapes that people go there to enjoy.
	The president of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, John Mackenzie—the Earl of Cromartie—believes that that is the single biggest threat to the Scottish mountain environment. We clearly have a conflict in this regard. In both Scotland, under different legislation and with devolved powers, and in England and Wales under the CROW Act, we are as societies opening up our wilderness areas and encouraging and allowing people to use them as walkers, climbers, and people interested in wildlife. Some people just want to go and look at it. There is clearly a conflict between taking that direction on the one hand, which is clearly a key government policy, and building wind farms all over the place on the other. How do we resolve that matter? That is one of the major problems that we have to face.
	I live in the heart of the Pennines, and I can sit in my house and look at Pendle Hill across the valley. It may well be that because I live in an area like that, surrounded by moors, people will turn round and say that I am just a nimby. Well, I am not just a nimby, because what I want in terms of preservation of our wild places, open landscapes, moorlands and hills for the area in which I live in the Pennines I want also for mid-Wales. Nearly half—I believe it is 45 per cent—of existing wind farm developments or the existing number of wind turbines are in the area of mid-Wales, which some years ago was being considered as a possible fourth national park. For various reasons, it was turned down and, because it is not a national park and does not have that protection, it is open to that kind of development.
	I am very conscious in the part of the world where I live that we have industrial valleys, which because they contained coal measures under the ground were subject to Victorian industrialisation. That created what I consider to be some delightful towns and industrial villages, but it also created huge numbers of environmental problems. Until the clean air legislation, the air was not fit to breathe in those valleys. There were huge amounts of industrial pollution, poor housing conditions, and areas of wasteland and dereliction caused by the old industry.
	All that has been subject to huge efforts to clear it up, and to turn those communities into places which are fit to live in, in the modern world. Yet what the people in those towns always had were the surrounding hills. They could escape from the pollution in the valleys, the squalid housing conditions and even from their jobs and go out on to the hills, where they were free. I am reminded of the famous words of "The Manchester Rambler" song:
	"I may be a wage slave on Monday, But I am a free man on Sunday".
	The moors on to which the people of Manchester escaped, the adjacent Pennines and the area around Oldham and Saddleworth, which the Minister may know, are not in national parks and are therefore under considerable threat of very substantial wind farm development. That may involve turbines that are much larger than the ones that exist at the moment, and in much larger quantity. It is no surprise that an organisation called the Saddleworth Moors Action Group was one of the bodies that recently convened a national conference. The first national wind farm protest group conference took place in Saddleworth, in the Lancashire or Yorkshire Pennines—whichever we think it is.
	The wind farms that are being proposed are not farms by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. They are industrial areas. They are power stations. It is the industrialisation of wilderness areas. Of course, it may be that some of the areas proposed for wind farms are not this kind of upland wilderness but are coastal areas or areas that have landscape benefits in other ways. But the areas I am particularly concerned about are on the hills.
	A huge wind farm development—27 turbines up to 370 feet high—has been proposed near Tebay, which noble Lords will know if they drive up the M6 through the Lune Gorge. The Shap Fells and the Howgill Fells, which are some of my favourite hills, simply do not possess the protection that they would have if they were somewhere else. If those hills were in the Yorkshire Dales or in the south of England, they would have protection because of the quality of their landscapes. The reason that they do not have protection is because they are next to the Lake District and the boundary of the Lake District National Park had to be drawn somewhere.
	These areas were thought to be not quite as grand as the fells of the Lake District, so they were missed out. Yet, if this wind farm were to be built in that area, it would be visible from the summits of a large number of the lakeland fells. We are talking of building wind turbines that are higher than Blackpool Tower. When I stand on the summit of Pendle Hill—a place I go to, unlike Blackpool Tower—on a fine day I can see Blackpool Tower, which is 50 miles away. What is being proposed for many of these areas is not just a Blackpool Tower but a forest of Blackpool Towers. We must be very careful indeed about where we site them, if we must have them, and about the processes by which that is agreed.
	It would be very easy to say, "Here are the national parks, here are the areas of outstanding natural beauty, let's build large forests of wind farms in circles around these protected landscapes". But what is the purpose of a protected landscape on one side of the border if the landscape on the other side of the border has been destroyed?
	I have a quote from the Observer of 6 October 2003. Sir Martin Holdgate was formerly head of the Swiss-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature and chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, which the Government set up in 1992. He seems to encapsulate the situation:
	"The trouble with wind farms is that they have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity. You would need 800 turbines to replace the output of a coal-fired power station".
	I think that these statistics are fairly well known.
	We have a real problem. We have a problem of conflicts between different aims and environmental objectives and a serious conflict of government policy. I believe that the opposition to wind farms is now developing a critical mass and that the Government will find it very difficult indeed to achieve the targets that they are putting forward on the basis of wind energy. I wish them the very best of luck in their targets for renewable energy. I do not believe that they will achieve them through onshore wind farms.

Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding should be congratulated on introducing this important debate this afternoon as the future supply of energy is likely to affect us all. The energy supply of the UK is changing rapidly from being based mainly on coal, nuclear and home-sourced gas, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has reminded us, to a future of reliance on mainly imported gas, with the aspiration of 20 per cent provided by renewables by the year 2020. Professor David Simpson, in a paper recently published by the David Hume Institute based in Edinburgh, identified the problems for the future. He stated that gas is projected to fuel,
	"some 68–75% of all electricity generated by 2020, of which . . . 90% is expected to be imported . . . Gas import requirements will exceed current pipeline capacity before 2010: major investment in gas interconnectors will therefore be needed simply to satisfy the present level of demand. At least six major connectors would be needed by 2020 to handle imports of gas at the levels projected by the DTI".
	So uncertainty as to whether there will be the capacity to import so much of our requirements is added to the unreliability of importing the gas from Russia, Libya, and Kazakhstan.
	At present there are no plans to build more nuclear stations, although the Government maintain that they are keeping the nuclear option open, whatever that might mean. It is a fact that by 2020 almost all of the nuclear plants, which today produce about 23 per cent of our electricity needs, will have shut down. Without steps taken now to ensure that new nuclear capacity is commissioned, we are looking at the end of the nuclear age in this country. My noble friend Lord Gray of Contin pointed out that the UK used to be in the lead in the nuclear industry. Now we are, sadly, lagging way behind.
	The rundown of nuclear energy also means that even if 20 per cent of our electricity needs are met by renewables in 2020 there will be no saving in CO2 emissions. The one will just replace the other. If that is repeating what my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding has said, then it deserves to be repeated until the lesson is learnt. Savings will have to be made elsewhere in the generating sector and will more likely have to be made in the transport sector if we are to adhere to our Kyoto commitment. Will the Minister give us his estimate of how long it would take, if the studies were started today, to commission a new nuclear power station?
	So what about renewables? Are the Government serious in their belief that renewable technologies of hydro, wind, biomass and solar energy can achieve the targets of 10 per cent by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2015 and the aspiration target of 20 per cent by 2020? At the present time, only 2.8 per cent of electricity production is accounted for by renewable energy. The gap between that figure and 10 per cent would require the installation of about 8 gigawatts of wind power capacity in the next six years, half of which might be onshore and half offshore. By the end of last year, just 640 megawatts of wind power capacity had been installed, of which less than 50 megawatts are offshore. I would be surprised if half that wind power capacity will be installed by 2010.
	We also have to ask the question whether we want all these wind farms, with their wind turbines, over our countryside. Whereas a group of wind turbines off the coast, some kilometres out to sea, might be a source of some fascination, the situation is much more controversial onshore. It is an inescapable fact that wind energy is inefficient. Even the latest Government figures admit that it is only 26 per cent efficient and is available only at certain times of the day or week. We are replacing the reliability of the base load nuclear stations with intermittent supply from wind energy.
	The Government also make a great play on sustainable development and handing on to our children a better world than the one we inherited. Are they seriously telling us that covering some of the more remote areas of the countryside with spinning windmills will enhance our appreciation of the countryside? No; the damage will be permanent. Not only will there be the wind turbines themselves; there will also be the infrastructure of pylons connecting to the grid which will further despoil our mountains and valleys. The unpredictability or fickleness of wind does not qualify as a sustainable energy.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the effect on tourism will be adverse. People tend to seek out the wilderness areas to get away from the stress of city life and to get closer to the natural world. It is the scale of the structures which makes them so out of place with the natural features of the countryside. The Scottish Executive has recently reconfirmed its commitment to renewable energy and now gives a target of 40 per cent generation in Scotland by 2020. There is an outstanding proposal for a 600 megawatt wind farm on the Island of Lewis—poor Lewis, with its remote and wild landscape.
	So what should be done? Offshore wind energy, although much more expensive to produce, could help the Government with their green credentials, and there are some remote areas and applications, remote from the grid, that could be served by wind turbines. Nuclear power is the only available emission-free alternative energy source that could to any significant extent substitute for carbon fuels. Unlike wind power, it does not need large tracts of land and can be expanded to meet almost any conceivable demand. Even the Swiss have accepted nuclear generation following a public referendum, and there are studies for new stations to come on line by 2025, to replace older stations which generate some 36 per cent of Swiss electricity. We need that enlightened approach here and for the Government to listen to the people.
	I would say that everyone I meet is most concerned about wind energy. It is not right that the ODPM should ride roughshod over local opinion with planning guidelines or statements that pursue a technology that is at best questionable and, in the eyes of many, downright wrong. What we require is a strategic approach to the production of electricity for the future, which cannot be achieved by importing gas. Nuclear energy should form the base load of 25 per cent to 30 per cent of our energy requirements, which would satisfy our Kyoto commitment and provide safe clean energy for the next generation.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for giving us yet another opportunity to discuss the delivery of energy in the future ere the lights go out. I must declare an interest. I sell firewood and I receive grants through the Scottish forestry grants scheme. I should also say that I have no connection with Shetland and the company called Biopower, about which I will be speaking. I should also say that I am in favour of nuclear, but I am not going to speak about it.
	I should like to talk about two subjects, on both of which the Minister may be able to respond positively. As I know he will be reluctant to sign a blank cheque, I will try to make my case now. I continue to be interested in remote areas policy and in biofuels.
	The first subject is the provision of sub-sea interconnector cables to the Scottish mainland. I was interested to read recently that our north Atlantic neighbours in Iceland are considering the construction of an interconnector cable from Iceland to the British mainland, to enable them to sell us their surplus electricity. Their geothermal power stations are harnessing a very renewable energy. The cost of the Iceland-to-Scotland interconnector would apparently be around £500 million; that is, half a billion.
	There is another proposal, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, referred, for large-scale onshore wind generation on the Island of Lewis, on Arnish Moor, an oceanic location. That would have considerable economic and social benefits, in my view, for the Outer Hebrides, in terms of both construction and long-term operation and maintenance. Clearly, there is a need for an interconnector cable to the mainland. It might be wise for the Icelanders to bring their proposed interconnector ashore on Lewis.
	I was most interested to read in this week's House Magazine an advertisement from the Shetland Islands Council with the banner headline,
	"Viking's Energy can Light up the Nation".
	We know that, 1,200 years ago, such a headline would have been a report of destructive activity. But now, looking forward, Shetlanders are planning to become the UK's renewable powerhouse—harnessing first their world class wind resource, and then their wave and tidal energy, the wet renewables.
	Shetland is already planning for a 250 megawatt wind farm to be constructed by Scottish and Southern Energy. Now, Viking Energy Ltd, a community business, is planning a 300 megawatt wind farm. The site, at Burradale, above Lerwick, has a capacity/load factor of 51 per cent plus, a significant reading in world terms. The Islands council claims that 600 megawatts of installed capacity in Shetland will have the same output as 1,000 megawatts of installed capacity off the English coast, but with the ease of onshore maintenance.
	The idea of Viking Energy Ltd as a community business is derived from the success that the people of Shetland have enjoyed in hosting Europe's largest oil and gas terminal at Sullum Voe over the past 25 years and the building up of an oil and gas endowment fund that is in many ways similar to the petroleum fund gathered together by the Norwegian Government which currently stands at £60 billion. The Shetlanders have learnt how to trade off negative impacts, visual and social, for long-lasting prosperity and well-being.
	So my question for the Minister has to be this. Shetland is planning to help the United Kingdom with renewable power supplies. Will the United Kingdom Government assist Shetland by helping to provide the essential sub-sea interconnector? Perhaps I can ask the same question about the Lewis interconnector.
	There is no doubt that the Shetland approach is unusual. The leadership is doing something for all the residents. I can only muse on the not too far-fetched analogy with the Viking era. When Hjaltland—that is, Viking Shetland—was mortgaged to the Scottish Crown and annexed by the Scots in 1469, the system of udal tenure provided that the skattold—the common grazing—was maintained by the larger landowners for the benefit of all the residents. The House will be disappointed to learn that the Scots quickly set about dismantling udal tenure and replacing it with their own feudal tenure. I suppose that I should declare the interest that I am a soon to be abolished feudal superior in central Scotland.
	Leaving that aside, I turn to my second subject about which the House has heard from me before. I am in correspondence with Biopower, an umbrella organisation based in north Wales that makes diesel from used cooking oil. This biodiesel is more powerful than fossil diesel and, indeed, has excellent upper cylinder lubricant properties, and in the event of a diesel spill is biodegradable. It is an ironic fact that the product, diesel, is better and more easily produced after use in a chip shop than before such use. The oil is filtered and even the 0.1 per cent which is filtered off the remnants of the chips and so on can be used as a heating fuel.
	I want to raise the fact that some of the Biopower businesses are being treated rather strangely and unfairly by officers of the Environment Agency. Their biodiesel is being treated as a waste product despite the fact that the cooking oil which they collect has a second use, and a valuable one at that. What is more, this second use attracts an excise duty. The Environment Agency is demanding that Biopower businesses must register themselves as waste management sites—an expensive procedure and an unnecessary one in my view—as the used cooking oil is a commodity and is not hazardous to human health or the environment. Biopower is content to register as a waste carrier as this will satisfy the need for the chip shop owners etcetera to demonstrate that they are acting responsibly in disposing of their cooking oil by selling it to Biopower businesses as a commodity.
	It seems that the Environment Agency is unable to see the difference between the traditional collectors of used cooking oil and the new collectors—Biopower. The old use of the used fat comprised collecting it and storing it for resale to animal feed companies as an additive. This has now been found to be hazardous to human health and a ban on this activity will come into effect in November 2004. The used vegetable oil was distinctly collected as a waste product and needed to be stored in a registered waste management site before onward disposal to the animal feed companies. So, I must ask the Minister this: the people who are creating biodiesel from used cooking oil are contributing to the acute need to find sustainable road fuels. Why is the Environment Agency working against that? Is the Minister content with the Environment Agency appearing to be working against the Government's stated aim of reducing the use of fossil fuels? Will the Minister please ask the Environment Agency to review its attitude towards this beneficial product?
	In conclusion, the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is as relevant and urgent as ever.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in paying the warmest possible tribute to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for the speech that he made in opening this debate.
	As I rose to my feet it occurred to me that it is 25 years since I made a speech on energy when I had the honour to be the shadow spokesman for energy along with my noble friend Lord Gray. At that time we had the valued support of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who tried to educate us regarding a better understanding of the minutiae or the intricacies of the coal industry.
	I wish to speak because I profoundly agree with the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and with the importance of this debate. My noble friend Lord Gray referred to a possible global crisis of monumental proportions. Whether or not that is an exaggeration at this stage, I am in no doubt that we face an extremely serious situation. At the moment I see little evidence that the Government appreciate that or intend to act. This matter will not be resolved by a quick change of government or by a government introducing a new policy to put the matter right. Unless there is a bipartisan approach and an understanding of the gravity of the situation, the whole economy of our country is threatened with very serious consequences indeed. We are in a quite different and very serious situation. The lead times as regards putting it right are not in our favour.
	I turn first to electricity generation. We know that the nuclear plants are ageing. We have an idea of the cost of the environmental protection that will be required regarding the coal plants. There is an urgent need to take decisions that can help to meet the very real risk that the lights will go out, to repeat the short and simple phrase used by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. The Government have been warned. I say with great respect to the noble Lord who will reply to the debate, who I believe does not have direct ministerial responsibility for this matter, that I hope he will do the House the courtesy of forwarding a copy of Hansard—the speeches that have already been made were of high quality although I make no comment on my own—to the Minister with responsibility for the matter that we are discussing. This is a matter of the gravest concern.
	As regards electricity generation, I was impressed to note at a meeting yesterday concerning a nuclear plant the huge improvement that has occurred regarding reliability in budgeting for and delivery of new nuclear plants. I speak as a former Member of Parliament who represented the constituency in which Hinckley, Magnox A plant and Hinckley B, an AGR plant, were situated. I witnessed the tragedy of the lapsed planning permission regarding Hinckley C. I also witnessed the problems, difficulties and delays that occurred during the construction process and the inability to keep within budget. Most recent figures show—admittedly not in this country as we are not building any—that people in other countries seem to have identified ways in which nuclear plants can be built much quicker than formerly, to budget and on time. Those plants are delivering significantly enhanced performance that enables them to be much more competitive vis-à-vis alternative methods of generation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, will recall that the energy policy to which we subscribed 25 years ago was called coconuke; that is, conservation, coal and nuclear. The dash for gas initiative arose at a time when the United Kingdom appeared to be so abundantly blessed with gas supplies that we did not have to worry. It seems to me that while problems obviously exist on the coal side, conservation and nuclear must be important elements in any energy mix. Established types of reactor now exist that can virtually be bought off the shelf. They should constitute the short-term solution. In the medium to longer term the high temperature reactors that are now being developed could be of considerable interest.
	I turn to the wider issue of security of supply. First, I mention gas in that connection. In the amiable days when we had our own gas and imported a little from a friendly country such as Norway, we did not face anything like the kind of strategic concerns that are now emerging very rapidly. I refer to countries that 25 years ago we had never heard of as possible sources of gas, for example, Russia, Libya and Kazakhstan—all countries which might face political pressures.
	Wearing my other hat as a former defence Minister I remember sitting in President Havel's office when he was president of Czechoslovakia. He was handed a note to advise him that due to pipeline problems in Russia, the gas supply to Czechoslovakia would be turned down. It was a rather cold November evening and you could feel the chill in the room. That was a clear warning to me regarding this country depending entirely on distant regions for a secure supply which is transported through pipelines of enormous length, the contents of which are shared with many other countries. In such circumstances you have to be jolly sure that you have assessed the situation correctly. Also, we want to be jolly sure that we have a variety of sources against the risk that some might let us down.
	On gas, we have the challenge that, incredibly in the reality of the timescale of government decision-making and implementation, in a short time we will be 90 per cent dependent. That is a really serious worry. On the oil side, we can look at the present situation, with the Norwegian strike, the problems in Venezuela, the issues in Saudi Arabia and the challenges in Iraq. The stability of world oil supplies and the failure of the major oil companies to replenish their reserves at the present rate of consumption are warning signals that the Government, and the world, need to recognise.
	There is also the issue about competition of demand. The Select Committee made the point very clearly. Anyone watching the developments in China will know, as the committee's report states, that China has,
	"a seemingly inexhaustible demand for energy and will be competing for piped Russian and central Asian gas as well as for global LNG supplies . . . While the Committee was conducting this inquiry, the International Energy Agency announced a considerable upward revision of its estimates for global gas demand. This was largely the result of the extraordinary sustained rates of economic growth achieved by China and India".
	The interesting report on energy in Euromonitor International states:
	"China is expected to surpass Japan as the second largest world oil consumer within the next decade and reach a consumption level of 10.5 million bbl/d by 2020, making it a major factor in the world oil market . . . Beijing must also find efficient suppliers to keep costs down. This means that China cannot do without Middle East production".
	We will face competition. Car numbers in China went up from 6 million to 12 million in four years, with the latest forecasts saying that they are likely to quadruple within the next 15 years. That is a warning. I was at the Shell AGM two days ago, at which the group chief executive proudly announced Shell's present capital investment programme for China downstream. Its programme is for petrol stations in China equivalent to half the total number of Shell petrol stations in this country. That is Shell's short-term investment programme. All those are indications of the growth in demand and the threats that we face.
	We run another risk, which has been referred to by other noble Lords. It is the issue of terrorism. We have had attempted attacks—no one should have been surprised—on refineries in Iraq and pipelines in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia spends 8 billion dollars a year on security to try to protect its present oil installations. There are risks around the world. Shell has difficulties in Nigeria. My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the obvious risks that we could face to domestic installations. I do not want to rehearse them again; they are all too real and could be a major threat.
	In that dangerous world, what can the Government do? They cannot guarantee the prevention of any terrorist attack, of course. However, in that circumstance, the one thing that seems absolutely essential is that there be some margin of safety in the provisions that are made for our country. That is why running close to the wire, whether in terms of electricity generation and sources of supply of oil or gas, is so serious. If there is too little safety margin, we make it a reality that the terrorist has the greatest possible chance to do serious damage to our economy, of perhaps a fundamental and distressing kind.
	My purpose in breaking my 25-year silence is simply to say that the crisis is the gravest that we have faced. We have had an easy time on energy supply. We were able to tear up some of the old predictions on which way we should go about electricity generation, the availability of gas, and the seeming luxury of our own oil supplies. We are now moving into a much tougher world at a much more difficult time, with increasing world competition, demand, and risk of terrorism. I would like some evidence—I hope that we might get the first instance of it today—that the Government have woken up to the fact that the situation is not normal.
	I end with the words of the Prime Minister, who said:
	"It is a challenge of a different nature from anything the world has faced before".
	He was talking about terrorism, but it applies to energy supplies and our energy situation as well.

Lord Chorley: My Lords, it has been both a well informed and rather sombre debate on a very big subject. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, on the masterly way in which he introduced it. I agreed with everything that he had to say. Interestingly, almost all the speeches have been about either wind, the general impression on which is thumbs down, or nuclear, for which the thumbs are up. I regret to say that I shall be no exception, as I shall talk mostly about wind and nuclear.
	The theme underlying many of the speeches, and indeed my remarks, is the need to reduce significantly our CO2 emissions over time. However, I emphasise that the policies have to be efficient and cost-effective. As that is my theme, I shall not pick up the powerful points made by the noble Lord, Lord King, about gas, but I am sure that everything that he says is absolutely true. To allow ourselves to rely on gas from countries that we barely knew existed 20 years ago across the continent of Europe seems madness.
	In the background is the overarching need at all times to have 100 per cent security of supply—that follows on from the points about gas pipelines—at competitive prices. That has to be the context against which we judge our policies and, in particular, the so-called renewables as against the alternatives. The energy White Paper, now 15 months old, was rather good in the chapter that dealt with security. It was comprehensive and wide-ranging, but it was only at the level of generalities. Its weakness was when it came down to specifics.
	On the renewables front it seems that, so far as concerns the Government, the only show in town is wind power. Contrariwise, the nuclear option is effectively sidestepped. There is no discussion of the recent and important technical developments taking place. Other speakers have made the same points already. Indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Gray, reminded us of the recent remarks of Professor Jim Lovelock on the matter, which give powerful support.
	I want to make a few remarks about wind energy, but I do not want to go over the environmental objections of landscape and wildlife damage that were spoken about to great effect by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. However, I add an en passant note to the effect that those who say how pretty a cluster of wind turbines looks across the landscape have rarely ever seen modern 400-foot turbines, which are huge industrial structures. Even more so, they have not had to live with them or even near them. I agree that the climate in the green lobby, in organisations like the CPRE and the RSPB, is rapidly changing. That is a good thing, too.
	I wish to talk about the economic objections to wind farms, which are various. The main objection is the high unit cost coupled with the lack of certainty of supply at the right time. Our usable winds are irregular and intermittent, which the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, told us about. It follows that the load factors are poor. I have a figure of 30 to 35 per cent, while some people put it lower. Hence, they need back-up, which is likely to be from a conventional CO2-emitting plant. The recent study by the Royal Academy of Engineering put the cost of back-up at a 65 per cent surcharge. There are also the difficulties of managing the grid when there is a wind supply of more than 10 per cent. I believe that the Danes are finding that this is becoming a problem.
	The same study put the unit cost of modern onshore wind at 5.4 pence per kilowatt hour, including the back-up. For offshore wind their figure is 7.2 pence per kwh. I contrast that with the normal unit cost rate for a combined cycle gas turbine, or CCGT, of about 2.2 pence per kwh. Interestingly, they put the cost of modern coal plant with the CO2 sequestration at about 5 pence—and I underline that. In other words, we could adapt our coal-fired stations and that would be fractionally cheaper than the true cost of wind power.
	In the nature of things, wind generated electricity by turbines is highly dispersed. It has to be collected and grids have to be constructed. This will be costly and there will be transmission losses. For a huge wind farm in the Hebrides—the island of Lewis has been mentioned—just imagine the costs and transmission losses of transporting the electricity to the main population centres. But those additional costs are never quoted. They do not seem to come into the equation.
	So the popular view of wind energy is that it produces no emissions, but a modern wind turbine uses large quantities of concrete in the making of its tower, which means large quantities of CO2, because concrete is cement and the fuel used to make it emits CO2. Moreover, the conventional back-up—presently CCGTs, would have to be kept running on a spinning reserve basis which itself would generate inefficient levels of CO2. One does speculate about the overall carbon balance of a modern wind turbine. How much carbon does it save over its 20 year life? Has anyone worked that out, because it would be very illuminating?
	I have said quite enough about wind power. In the natural environment field the other sources of energy that are usually mentioned are wave, tidal barrages, and tidal flow or stream. My impression is that few knowledgeable people believe that either wave or barrages would be economic—and barrages usually come with a huge environmental cost. But in the tidal stream field it is my understanding that exciting technical progress is now being made and it comes without the environmental costs of barrages. Is this a Cinderella that is coming good? Could the Minister tell us? I apologise for not giving him notice of that question.
	Finally, I should say something about nuclear power. I must say that it is inescapable that we have to start embracing the nuclear solution. This afternoon and on numerous other occasions real concern has been expressed at what one can only describe as the Government's pusillanimous attitude to nuclear. We now have a situation in which over the next decade or so our remaining nuclear stations will be decommissioned. In those circumstances it is difficult to see how we can hold our CO2 emission levels down, let alone meet our Kyoto target—whatever that is worth.
	The Government seem to take no interest in the technical progress that has been going on steadily in other parts of the world. I shall not go over the ground covered by many speakers, but it seems apparent now that technical progress has been made relentlessly over the past 10 years and other countries are now ordering nuclear power stations—including Finland, which has been mentioned, as has France and so on. One is aware of the work being carried out in the USA, in particular at MIT, and the interesting development by Eskom, the Government electricity organisation in South Africa, in what is known as pebble-bed technology. The Royal Academy of Engineering report puts the current cost of nuclear power including decommissioning at 2.3 pence per kwh. Although one might criticise the discount rate used on that and even if one adjusted for that nuclear is still the most economic source after gas.
	I shall say no more, other than to express my regret and my real worry that unless we embrace modern technologies, including the issue of the disposal of high level waste, we will end up with the worst of all possible worlds. Would it not be better to make haste slowly and more thoughtfully? Would it not be better to use the implicit subsidy that we spend on wind power for real research and development? Whether that should, for example, be tidal stream, nuclear or photovoltaic for sparsely populated areas, I do not know. Or should that money be spent on research and development to tackle the more difficult problems of CO2 emissions for transport? What I am quite sure about is that wind is not the answer and nuclear, almost certainly, is—in the scale that will be necessary.
	I conclude by quoting some wise words by a distinguished Danish writer. He said:
	"We should remember that dealing with global warming is not about making expensive, symbolic efforts to cut emissions now. It should be about making sure that our children and grandchildren will stop using fossil fuels because we have provided them with better and cheaper alternatives".

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to add my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing this debate with his customary vigour. I entirely agree with what he said about security of supply now being one of the major aspects of the energy scene, This has changed since the White Paper was published in February last year.
	He pointed out that for the first time in its industrial history the UK will become dependent upon imports at a time when supply is under pressure and prices are rising. All the indications are that this situation could continue. That was referred to by many noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater—who reminded me of our earlier forays into energy policy—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
	I propose considering the implications of that situation for the supply of gas, oil and electricity respectively, bearing in mind our environmental objectives. I shall take gas first. We are likely to become net importers of gas from as soon as the end of next year. That is not some distance away; it will happen in about 18 months' time. As the noble Lord, Lord Gray, reminded us, by 2010 we could be importing 50 per cent of our gas requirements and 70 per cent by 2020.
	The short-term problem was identified by the EU Select Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred; that if we are going to start importing gas as quickly as that on such a substantial scale, we must have the means to do so. That involves new import schemes, with their linked infrastructure. These are indeed being planned, but the Select Committee doubted whether they would be sufficiently in place during the next two to three years to enable the whole operation to be conducted smoothly.
	The committee was particularly worried about the relatively low level of gas stocks. We have held a low level because our main stocks of gas were in the North Sea, but they have been depleted and our stocks are at a lower level than in most countries on continental Europe. Therefore, we no longer have that buffer if anything should go wrong.
	There are also longer term risks in the heavy dependence on imported gas. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, on the question of gas interconnectors referred to this being a long-term as well as a short-term problem and a very costly one. The real issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray, mentioned is that we are located at the end of the European pipeline, which means that we will be increasingly dependent on distant and some uncertain sources of supply and on gaining adequate access to pipeline connections—this is of great importance—which pass through a number of countries, any one of which could change its policy on the subject. So it follows that we ought to be putting much greater emphasis on diversification of supply, which the Government identified in the White Paper. At present, they place their main reliance on wind energy as the main diversification.
	A number of noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, in particular—referred to the problems encountered in particular by on-shore wind energy. My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie referred to the interconnector cables which will have to be built to ensure that we have the full connections with offshore wind power. But even if the Government's targets for wind power are achieved, this will still represent a relatively small proportion of our future energy requirements. Therefore, a wider range of renewables needs to be developed more speedily; for example, biomass, photovoltaics and tidal power.
	But that in itself would not be enough. This therefore leads to a subject which has perhaps dominated the debate; namely, nuclear power. I am of the opinion that we cannot have a coherent energy policy without settling the nuclear issue one way or the other. If we decide to go ahead with nuclear power, certain problems must be resolved. If we do not, we must clearly demonstrate how the resultant gap will be closed. One of the problems which must be resolved if we want to go ahead is the relatively high capital cost. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made some interesting comments on that. Apparently, there are ways in which that cost can be substantially reduced.
	Furthermore, most of us believe that the issue of the handling of nuclear waste has gone on for far too long and it needs to be resolved quickly. Finally, there is the issue of achieving public acceptability; probably the most difficult of the issues facing the nuclear industry. In that connection, the interesting contribution from my noble friend Lord Taverne on radiation and safety was particularly relevant.
	I turn to an issue close to my heart, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater; namely, coal. I believe that coal has a part to play and I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to it. As currently burnt, it has serious environmental disadvantages, which mean that the remaining coal-fired stations will have to be taken out of service before long. But clean coal technologies have been developed with carbon extraction.
	It is urgent that some of these plants should be commissioned for two reasons. First, it could help to reduce the dependence on gas in the UK and, secondly and as importantly, it could pave the way for exporting these technologies to countries, especially in the Far East, which are substantial and growing users of coal. Last year, China alone increased its consumption of coal by 100 million tonnes. As a result of that, global carbon emissions, far from reducing in line with Kyoto objectives, actually rose by 3.8 per cent. That is likely to continue. We must seek to ensure that countries such as China and India can be enabled to use more coal without harming the atmosphere.
	Oil has been discussed frequently in this House as a result of the recent perturbations and there is no doubt that there must be a greater emphasis on new technologies in the transport sector to reduce the usage of petroleum fuel. Technologies are readily available in the form of biofuels and hybrid vehicles and further along the line is the development of fuel cells, which are already being tried out in a limited number of vehicles.
	I come finally to electricity. We have talked about the diversity of prime energy into electricity, the need to reduce gas and the nuclear issue, but I want to refer to two other aspects affecting electricity. The first is the adequacy and reliability of the electricity supply system. Capacity margins have been much reduced as a result of the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements, (NETA). We now face the risk that under exceptional circumstances there may not be sufficient capacity to meet the demand. Such conditions could be due to the weather, unexpected outages or, as many noble Lords mentioned, terrorist action.
	While obviously we cannot provide for all eventualities, there should be a greater measure of insurance than currently exists. Serious consideration should therefore be given to the reintroduction of capacity payments, which could increase the margin of reserve. I was interested in the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to the concept of a security of supply obligation. I regard that as a major issue which needs to be tackled urgently.
	There should be a major shift from conventional power stations to more localised generation, right down to the domestic scale in which I declare an interest. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, who, I am glad to note, has just said, "Hear, hear", strongly supports that. Such a development would have the advantage of greater efficiency through the use of waste heat and the avoidance of transmission and distribution losses. The Government should be doing much more in that connection to support combined heat and power.
	In conclusion, the publication of the White Paper in February 2003 certainly covered the ground fully. It made clear what the Government's energy objectives were but since then security of supply has become the prime energy consideration. We face new risks, in both the short and long term. Many noble Lords and I have set out some of the actions which should be taken. What seems to be clear to me is that a major reassessment of energy policy is now required.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for the excellent way in which he comprehensively introduced this debate. I have heard it said more than once about your Lordships' House that we are interested in debating only hunting, shooting, fishing and sex—perhaps we should add "energy". There is a very good reason for that. All noble Lords who have spoken are extremely concerned about our ability, on the one hand, to meet the twin but conflicting demands of security of energy supplies in the widest sense and, on the other hand, to arrest the march of global warming and climate change. When I say "arrest", I mean arrest, not just the cosmetic attempts of the Kyoto treaty to hide the political embarrassment of global warming, as Professor Lovelock put it.
	Almost all noble Lords seem to be singing from more or less the same song sheet, but I suspect that the Minister wishes that he could use now the Government's song sheet that will be written after the general election. Before getting to the substance of my speech, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for the sterling support and advice that he has given me and my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon over recent months. Sadly, my noble friend cannot be here tonight.
	It is unfortunate that, with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, there is little opposition to the general thrust of your Lordships' recent contributions on energy debates. Hence, we are unable to test our arguments against a contrary opinion apart from that of the Minister. Perhaps it might be good to have someone like Jonathon Porritt in your Lordships' House, even if we did not agree with him.
	My noble friend Lord Jenkin painted the general scenario. Among other things, he talked about capacity. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, cannot be here tonight but he very clearly doubts that mothball plant can be quickly brought back on line. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, pointed out that we are dealing with a global problem. She is right, but as a highly developed post-industrial economy we should lead the way in solving the problem. The noble Baroness appears to be well briefed by the green lobby, but not by Professor Lovelock. She spoke briefly of some of the snags with nuclear power, for instance the possibility of a terrorist attack. But what about an attack on an LNG tanker delivering to an estuarine terminal? There is a vulnerability there, too.
	The noble Baroness quite properly talked of reduction in demand by various means. She is right to say that there is scope. It will help but, of course, economic growth will mop up any savings in CO2 emissions. She has a point about a terrorist attack on nuclear power stations and nuclear installations. However, a new build can take into account that risk. Secondly, on those grounds would she advocate immediate decommissioning of all nuclear power stations because of the terrorist risk? I suspect not, because of the immediate huge increase in CO2 emissions.
	The noble Baroness produced some alarming statistics on the weight of nuclear waste. She may or may not be right; I know not. However, nuclear waste is extremely dense. I must be honest: I understand that the infrastructure for a deep geological depository requires very considerable and expensive infrastructure below ground.
	A more interesting and useful measure of nuclear waste is volume. If the noble Baroness visits BNFL at Sellafield she will see that in orders of magnitude the high-level waste store is not much bigger than the Royal Gallery. I think that she grossly exaggerates the scale of the problem. I helpfully suggest that she take another look at the 1999 report of the Select Committee on the management of nuclear waste.
	I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I agree with him that the risks of nuclear activities are overstated. But I have not heard the details of his arguments before and I will have to study Hansard very carefully.
	My noble friend Lord Ullswater talked about the uncertainty of future gas supplies. I agree with him; our reliance on a single source of fuel for such a high proportion of our primary power is unwise. He also talked about despoiling our countryside, as did the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others. That major difficulty with the Government's policy has been partially mitigated by opting for off-shore wind.
	The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, talked about the difficulties with small-scale production of biofuel. I am always surprised by the regulatory difficulties put in the way of renewables.
	My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater talked about new nuclear build. I was at the same presentation that he attended. He also talked about strategic concerns and defence issues—something that, with my military connections, I am acutely aware of.
	Since our last debate on energy, our thoughts have been informed by Professor James Lovelock's important contribution to the debate that appeared on the front page of the Independent on 24 January. His opinion was well covered by my noble friend Lord Jenkin and others. In a nutshell, Professor Lovelock points out that global warming could be the greatest danger faced by civilisation so far. He talks about the collapse of civilisation but not the end of human life and states that only nuclear power can meet the demand for energy and reduce emissions. Of course he understands that emissions control will help, but nowhere near fast enough.
	Part of our problem is that a large proportion of our emissions arise from transport operations, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. Currently, our transport operations use almost exclusively hydrocarbon fuels. There is some electric traction, but of course that also has a carbon penalty.
	We can make marginal improvements by reducing our waste and usage of transport, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. However, in order to make major reductions to power, energy and emissions relating to transport, a significant reduction in the size of the economy would be needed, because transport is inextricably linked to economic activity. Who is going to tell that to the Chancellor or, for that matter, the Americans, the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese or anyone else who wants to develop a modern industrial economy? Developments in hydrogen-related technology will become ever more important for transport, and that covers both the use and generation of hydrogen.
	My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the recent report of the EU Select Committee on gas markets and supply. After my Starred Question today, I would not want to pre-empt any debate, but the Minister should not draw any comfort from the report, even though it was slightly more optimistic than I expected.
	Two main concerns were identified in the report. The committee was unconvinced about the security of supply in the next two or three years. It was especially concerned about the possibility and the effect of extreme weather conditions and it reports that in the longer term, up to 2015, there should be ample supplies. But the difficulty is that this is within the lead time of new nuclear build, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater.
	That is tight even for conventional fossil fuel power stations. But, with the advent of the Large Combustion Plant Directive, what alternatives are there? In any case, I fear that 75 to 85 per cent of our primary power from a single source—gas—that we cannot control is unwise.
	We should also be informed by recent industrial difficulties in the Norwegian oil and gas industries. I have seen the absolute misery in city tower-block dwellings in Bosnia during the winter of 1993–94, when the inhabitants were deprived of both electricity and coal. My noble friend Lord King touched on the difficulties of maintaining gas supplies in eastern Europe. If we are not very careful about gas supplies, the same difficulties could occur in the UK—to our people in our cities.
	Many noble Lords have touched on the attractions of nuclear power. It is clear that no political party will want to raise that issue before the general election. The general election will be fought on other matters. In fact, we do not need to make a decision about nuclear power new build right now. However, in order to keep the nuclear option open, with the shortest possible lead time, we need to make progress on the long-term disposal of nuclear waste, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
	The public see that as an insurmountable objection to new nuclear build. During our most recent debate on energy, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, agreed with me that the only viable long-term disposal option for high-level waste is a deep geological repository. All noble Lords will have noticed the welcome change in attitude from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will follow his lead, because it was much appreciated.
	However, noble Lords will recognise how much will flow from the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, about high-level waste. It is unhelpful to push too hard on that point at the moment. However, I am surprised that no noble Lord mentioned the closure of the Chapelcross Magnox nuclear power station. I understand the reasons for its closure: it generated only 194 megawatts; but that represents quite a few wind farms. At some point, it may be necessary to change the terms of reference for Chorum. It is expending far too much time examining unviable disposal options, rather than following the admirable suggestion of your Lordships' Select Committee.
	Outside Westminster and the industry, there is confusion about the role of the NDA. Of course, its role is nuclear decommissioning, not long-term waste management. I should like to take this opportunity to welcome the appointment of Sir Anthony Cleaver as, effectively, chairman designate of the NDA. The issue of waste management is important and the general public's acceptance of waste solution is a prerequisite for the public acceptance of any new nuclear build, if required at some time in the future—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
	It may be that we decide not to exercise the nuclear option. If we do not, we shall have to look at tidal power. I am extremely disappointed by the Government's attitude to the possibility of a tidal barrage. I am running out of time, so I shall have to leave it there, but I wish that the Minister would be a little more positive about tidal power, so that industry will consider investing more in research on the Severn Barrage project.
	Thanks in part to our debate, Ministers are beginning to recognise the weakness of their policy. That concerns medium-term security of supply and the fact that we may not be moving nearly fast enough on global warming and climate change.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I join other noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on introducing the debate, which has raised fundamental issues about energy policy. I pay tribute to both his tenacity in repeatedly raising these issues in the House and the forceful way in which he introduced the debate. He will recognise that our views differ on certain aspects of energy policy, and I quibble with one remark that he made. That is his suggestion that the Government, far from listening to such debates, have nothing but contempt for other views expressed.
	Let me say that, of course, we stand by the main propositions behind the White Paper. We are clear that that made an important statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, indicated, about the development of government policy. Of course, we recognised that within that there would be a necessity for evolution and development against changing circumstances. The Government do not have a closed mind about issues and rightly so. In areas where we have clear views, it will take some degree of persuasion for us to change our perspective.
	I would be doing the House a disservice if I did not rebut the notion that the Government do not listen carefully to contrary views. I say to the noble Lord, Lord King, who emphasised that when such a person of limited influence in the department as me is replying to the debate, it behoves me to ensure that Ministers who do take crucial decisions are aware of the contours of the debate. I could not agree with him more, and the value of such a debate is exactly that. We have important and significant mechanisms for feeding these issues back to Ministers who take responsibility for decisions.
	It is not long since the Energy Bill left this House for the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would agree that during the debates on the Bill on a number of occasions we articulated many of the issues that have been raised again this evening. We had many stimulating discussions about the security of the UK's energy supply, which has been a significant theme of this evening's debate, and about issues of renewable energy. I recognise some of the anxieties that were expressed, although I take it with some concern that some of these criticisms are now coming from quarters that it was expected would be largely supportive. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, expressed in the most graphic terms that there is a necessity for a rethink among the Green movement on its stance with regard to renewables. Rethinking is always a good concept for any pressure group.
	The noble Lord referred to the fact that I might know a little bit about Saddleworth, and therefore was aware of the important meeting that took place the other day about the possible construction of wind turbines there. I hope that he will recognise that it was not just the good folk of Saddleworth who participated in that debate, but people from other parts of the country. I hope that he also noticed that some of them were not very far removed from strong lobby groups on pro-nuclear. Therefore, the debate on wind turbines may not have been quite the innocent issue of protection of landscape against the necessary generation of electricity. It also had a strong element of ensuring that one potential competitor, an alternative strategy to nuclear, should in fact be challenged in those terms. That meeting gave some reflection of that.
	We all recognise that there is no more fundamental issue of greater importance to our economy or our very way of life than the security and development of energy supplies. It will not be a surprise to anyone in this House if I first refer to the White Paper. I assure noble Lords that we have not changed our perspective on the White Paper. In our view, it expressed the absolute cardinal points that an energy policy for this country needs to be based on. Putting the United Kingdom on a path to reduced CO2 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050 is an international obligation. Noble Lords who have participated in this debate and have reflected on the environmental issues all recognise the salience of that objective in terms of the welfare of the wider world and not just our own citizens.
	Maintaining the reliability of energy supplies, as I indicated before, was a point emphatically made in the debate tonight. Another factor is the promotion of competitive markets both in the UK and beyond, because it is through such structures that we get the best value for our people. Ensuring that each home is adequately and affordably heated is essential, because heat and light are crucial to all our fellow citizens for enjoyment of living. This is not a menu of options. These four points interlock and are part of the total objective that we must have for an energy policy. It is a package to be taken as a whole.
	I will come to the points about particular technologies that noble Lords have advanced this evening, but I wanted first to produce a general response. We need flexibility to keep the UK on the right track to meet our international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, and to meet our ambitious domestic goal to reduce carbon emissions by 2050. That is an important dimension of our objectives.
	In terms of the broader picture, this means that we need a diverse mix of energy sources and supply routes. Of course noble Lords are right to emphasise—it came out in a number of the penetrating speeches made this evening—that in fact we were on the brink of a substantial change with regard to our energy, in terms of our movement to greater dependence on international supplies. In putting forward this position, our obligation is to meet the needs of our people, but it would be remiss if we did not recognise that all our neighbouring economies too will be dependent upon the securing of those supplies.
	I recognise what is being said about the potential vulnerability of some of those supplies, because they are distant and they are from countries with which we have not in the past developed trade of a dependent kind in quite the way we will with regard to energy. Our job is to maximise the potential routes of supply of energy. When we do this, we are looking at Europe, we are looking at Russia, we are certainly looking at central Asia and of course we are looking at North Africa.
	The Foreign Office's job, as is certainly emphasised in its objectives, is to create international negotiations, treaties, obligations, frameworks and understandings, which guarantee that we are able to maximise our access to energy supplies against a background where some of this will be done in co-operation with our European partners. This is because Europe itself is increasingly dependent on these flows of energy resources from locations outside Europe.
	One ready solution to this particular position has been emphasised this evening; namely, the ready-made solution of increased development of nuclear power. There have been a number of weighty contributions, but also perhaps one or two less substantial points.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, asked how long it took to build a nuclear power station from scratch. Well, from its whole planning, it takes 10 to 15 years. I did hear a remark that there might be some nuclear power stations which could be bought off the peg. I was not quite sure just what that represented—I suppose it indicated that there might be a faster route towards development of nuclear power, but I cannot quite envisage that.
	What I am resisting, however, is the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that the Government are busy putting every obstacle in the way of the nuclear industry. That is not so. It is the case, as he has recognised, that we do not, at this stage, believe that building new nuclear power stations is likely. That is because it is not economically attractive. It is not the Government dictating that. It is just not true that the Government are putting every obstacle in the way.
	The Government are concerned about keeping the nuclear option open. They are not putting barriers in the way in those terms. Of course, we are reflecting. I do not think that noble Lords can be dismissive of that point, which was ably emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in her contribution; namely, that there is a whole range of real anxieties about nuclear power.
	There are worries about nuclear accidents, which we cannot erase from public perception. They are certainly not erased from the perception of the Russian or American publics or that of many of our European partners. Nor can we underestimate the problem of terrorist attacks. Of course, all power supplies are potentially open to threat in those terms. But we all recognise the particular danger to the community of a terrorist attack affecting a nuclear power station.
	As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, constantly reminds me, when will we be convinced that there is a solution to the issue of nuclear waste? In a recent contribution, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury regarded the deep geological approach as the one that is most likely to be effective. Of course, I would do nothing but support that position.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord agreed that it was the only viable option.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am not decrying from that position. I am merely indicating that those issues are not easily overcome. We all know that the issues concerning nuclear waste are still a profound problem. They cannot be readily brushed aside, however enthusiastic several contributors to this debate may be about nuclear power.
	With regard to renewable energy, of course the Government are concerned that there should be a range of options. I was enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for his advocacy of a range of potential options, including those with exciting potential for the future with regard to tidal power, but which currently may be very difficult, in commercial terms, to bring into the market place. But he is right that we need to encourage such developments and such research. The Government are doing exactly that.
	There is no doubt that in the shorter term, it is not that the Government have a preoccupation with wind power. I assure noble Lords that that is not the issue. The issue is that wind power is proving to be the area of generation of power to which the market is responding and in which it is preparing to invest heavily. Of course, there are environmental considerations in that respect.
	In round two, planning permission and development will see a greater number of wind turbines placed in coastal waters and not on some of our greatly cherished landscapes. But it will also be recognised that some wind turbines will be located on land. Of course, planning permission must be obtained. It will have to meet the strict requirements of not interfering aggressively with the landscape.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right to point out that in our protection of areas of outstanding natural beauty we should not ignore those areas that are just immediately outside which, themselves, are treasured and valued by local people. Let me say that if anything came out of the meeting at Saddleworth, it is certainly the case that such procedures will not be followed without local people having their say.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, emphasised again his enthusiasm and commitment to combined heat and power. He berated the Government, as he has on many occasions in the past, for our more limited enthusiasm as regards the benefits of that strategy. It is not that the Government do not recognise the benefits of combined heat and power, but they do not take a supportive stance. The noble Lord will recognise that we have some reservations about putting undue emphasis on this solution to the issues. However, who better than the noble Lord, with his background, could stress the role that coal can play, in particular new clean coal technologies? Of course we are responsive to that. We are concerned to ensure that a situation does not develop within renewables in which we rob Peter to pay Paul. The major problem with combined heat and power may lie in that area.
	I return to the theme with which I began my remarks. It has been suggested during the debate that the Government have closed minds and blocked ears on the development of our energy policy. We have a clearly identified strategy to which we are committed, and we have obligations that must be met which dictate that strategy. It is not the case that we are closing off options, nor is it that we are unmindful of the strength of positions which develop in the energy field against a background that all noble Lords would recognise; that of a significantly changing perspective on the security of and access to energy supplies. No one doubts the importance of that. It is why we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for initiating this debate. It helps to give prominence to issues that we all recognise.
	In replying to the debate I recognise that I have fallen short in responding to every point. I have to confess that the one which floored me most was that introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I shall need to look carefully at the research he quoted on the limited impact of nuclear disasters on the health of surrounding communities. He has set out his stall to challenge received opinion on these issues by quoting some very important sources. I am not in a position to respond to him at the level at which he presented his arguments, and I hope that he will forgive me. However, his arguments will be taken on board.
	That leads me to a more general point. It was suggested during the passage of the Energy Bill that the issue of security of supply was such that it should be written on to the face of the Bill as a government requirement. That was done in this House. We indicated that we had some difficulty with the amendment and of course we resisted it. I indicated at the time that it would not find favour with the other place. However, what I want to reflect to noble Lords this evening is this. Discussions and negotiations have been conducted in the other place. It is recognised that there are serious concerns about this issue. I am able to reveal to noble Lords that negotiations are reaching a point where we would expect the Secretary of State to undertake to make an annual report to Parliament about the security of energy supplies. That would guarantee a significant debate in the other place once a year, and no doubt in your Lordships' House it will most likely merely add to the number of debates which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would prompt in any case, together with several of his noble friends who are particularly active in this area.
	It has been an interesting debate in which some very important and salient points have been made. The Government certainly are aware that this is an important and significant issue for our community. Far from seeking to choke off debate, it is our responsibility to encourage it in areas that we all recognise are not only exceedingly difficult but absolutely essential to the welfare of all the communities we hold dear.

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, before I beg leave to withdraw my Motion, I have ascertained that I have about 23 minutes before our time runs out. However, I have considerable sympathy for the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord McIntosh, and other Ministers, who are in their places. They have to conduct the business which follows this debate and I shall resist the temptation.
	I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who described this as a sombre debate. That is certainly what it has been.
	I welcome the recognition by the Minister, in his customary amiable way, that events certainly have moved on since the White Paper of 15 months ago and that security of supply has now reached the top of public concern. It so happens that I opened a copy of a letter from the Minister for energy, Stephen Timms, addressed to one of my colleagues in the Commons, just before I introduced the debate. I have not had time to read the amendment that the Government are minded to table at Report stage in another place. It is a step forward and we shall want to look at it very carefully indeed.
	The only other speech I would pick out from what has been a remarkable debate—I thank all noble Lords who took part most warmly for their contributions—is that of the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. I took part in a debate when the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, made his maiden speech, and he made exactly the same point. He made it in rather a different way and a different manner, but he raised the issue of whether radiation is to be regarded as linear or whether there is a threshold below which it can be beneficial.
	I believe we shall hear more of this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, pointed out, the costs that have been imposed on the entire industry over the past 50 years of dealing with radiation on the assumption that it is a straight line and linear and therefore has to be kept to the absolute minimum—nil if possible—are enormous. This argument will have to be addressed. I sympathise with the Minister for being confronted with the argument, but it has been heard before and will be heard again. It is a very important issue.
	With those very few remarks and reiterating my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill

Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Boston of Faversham) in the Chair.]

Lord Boston of Faversham: I understand that no amendments have been set down to the Bill. With the agreement of the Committee I shall now put the Question that I report the Bill to the House without amendment. The Question is that I report the Bill to the House without amendment.

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2004

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to the second order as well, also laid on 7 June. Both orders are being made under the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
	It may be helpful if I put the orders in context. Last year, the Government made orders in support of their response to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, Holding to Account. One of those orders provided that the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be the auditor of all NDPBs other than those incorporated under the Companies Acts. Another order granted the Comptroller and Auditor-General access rights to certain documents for the purpose of carrying out those audits.
	The Government welcomed the commitments that the Comptroller and Auditor-General made at the time. He provided assurances that his new powers would not be used in a way that would increase burdens and that the National Audit Office would put in place new arrangements to ensure a high quality of service in the absence of any competitive tendering arrangements.
	The Government also made an order to rationalise the statutory responsibilities for auditing special health authorities which were previously subject to audit by both the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. That order, together with a separate order discontinuing the requirement to produce summarised accounts, reduced the dual audit burden on the special health authorities and reduced Department of Health costs.
	The orders being debated today are intended to continue the process that Parliament approved last year. I am grateful for the assistance we have received from the National Audit Office throughout the process of preparing these orders. I now turn to the orders themselves.
	The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2004 provides for the Comptroller and Auditor-General to be made the statutory auditor for the Hearing Aid Council. The Hearing Aid Council currently appoints its own auditors. The order also takes account of developments in respect of the Seafish Industry Authority.
	The Hearing Aid Council is a statutory body established under the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. It regulates anyone who sells hearing aids, whether in the high street, the purchaser's home or a hospital. However, it does not regulate hearing aids that are supplied free of charge by the National Health Service, through mail order nor e-commerce sales. The Hearing Aid Council sets the standards of competence and conduct towards which all hearing aid dispensers are expected to work. It was reclassified as a non-departmental public body, with effect from 1 April 2003. It is intended that in due course the Hearing Aid Council will transfer from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department of Health.
	Last year's order, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2003, made the Comptroller and Auditor-General responsible for auditing the Seafish Industry Authority as from the financial year 2005–06. The date was chosen to enable the contract with their auditors to run its course. Since then, the auditors have resigned, to become the Seafish Industry Authority's internal auditors. There would be a clear conflict of interest if they retained the position of external auditors. There is now no body with legal responsibility to carry out the external audit. The Government are taking the opportunity, with this new order, to bring forward the date when the Comptroller and Auditor-General becomes responsible for auditing the Seafish Industry Authority to the financial year 2003–04.
	The second order, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Health Service Bodies) Order 2004, deals with the audit of four new special health authorities, and has been prepared in consultation with the Department of Health. The special health authorities are: NHSU, known as the NHS University; NHS Direct; NHS Professionals; and the NHS Pensions Agency.
	The previous arrangements required two sets of accounts to be prepared for each special health authority—one set by the special health authority and the other set by the Department of Health—and for each special health authority to be, in effect, audited twice—once by auditors appointed by the Audit Commission and secondly by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The intention of the second order is therefore to put the new special health authorities on a par with all the others; that is, to make the Comptroller and Auditor General the statutory auditor of special health authorities in place of the Audit Commission, thus avoiding the dual-audit burden. The proposals continue the Government's commitments to improve parliamentary accountability and I commend the orders to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the orders. I shall say at the outset that we support them. They rationalise the way in which certain parts of the public sector are audited. The first audit is in line with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, which we have always supported. The second order is a logical measure to remove double audit arrangements. We find nothing to object to in the orders.
	The Minister may be hoping that I shall now sit down. But I have to disappoint him, because an old audit hand never misses an opportunity to talk about her specialist subject. I shall therefore crave the indulgence of the House for just a few minutes on that subject.
	I would like the Minister to address the simple issue of the Government's overall policy towards public sector audit. We have adopted a patchwork approach across the country. The longest-standing element comprises the Comptroller and Auditor General and National Audit Office. We have been well served by those arrangements and I am pleased to see that the effect of the orders before us this evening is to extend the scope of the C&AG's work.
	However, in the early 1980s, the then government—a Conservative government—took a look at local authority audits. They decided that they should be brought under a common framework and the Audit Commission was invented. The Audit Commission then became flavour of the month and it acquired other audits, including those of NHS bodies, which were rather unsatisfactorily audited at the time by the Department of Health. Since then, the Audit Commission has been busy acquiring all kinds of other functions such as best-value inspections, which we could debate another day.
	I concede that in creating the Audit Commission, the Conservative government set the ball rolling, but we now have duplication of public audit. Is it logical and/or cost-effective to have that? Earlier this year, I had the privilege to speak on the Public Audit (Wales) Bill for these Benches. I was pleased to note that the Government had taken a firm view that audit duplication must end in Wales. The Auditor General for Wales will be responsible for audits of the whole spectrum—central government, local authorities and health bodies—and the Audit Commission will disappear in Wales.
	Why have the Government taken that bold approach to public sector audit in Wales, but left England to languish under these double arrangements, which owe more to historical accident than logic? The second order creeps us a little nearer to a logical end state, but a lot more is left unchanged by the orders.
	That is the overall picture. If the Government do not want to address in England what they have correctly addressed in Wales, I shall turn to the second order. It deals with some parts of the NHS—namely, special health authorities—and builds on the orders that were made last year. Those orders were rightly justified as a means of preventing the special health authorities being audited twice. If that rationale is good enough for special health authorities, why is it not good enough for the other health bodies that have been created by NHS legislation; namely, strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts, which are audited by the Audit Commission and then audited again for the purposes of the summarised NHS accounts? I remind the Minister that the summarised NHS accounts are a large volume which I think I am the only person to collect from the Printed Paper Office each year. That brings together the accounts of all those things that have already been audited by the Audit Commission. There is a similar, although slightly more complicated issue, in relation to foundation trusts.
	What is the logic for rationalising the audit arrangements for special health authorities but not all the other bodies in the NHS? I have struggled to find what substantive difference there is between them in terms of audit arrangements. I hope that the Minister can enlighten me.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I, too, rise to thank the Minister for his presentation of the two orders and to say that we on these Benches support them. They seem the right way in which to go forward. I listened with great care to the noble Baroness, as I am similarly an old audit hand and as I have an interest in what the word "audit" means.
	One thing that occurs to me—although in one sense I say, "sufficient to the day"—is a reservation about absolute and utter uniformity. I understand that the Comptroller and Auditor-General being placed as auditor of all sorts of things in the public sector is one thing. However, in the private sector there is encouragement from time to time for the idea that auditors should be changed. It would not do if there were only certain people with experience of auditing in the public sector.
	I am happy to support the orders in relation to the relevant bodies, and see that that is a way of straightening up those matters that seemed to have a jagged edge. However, I have some reservations about the total straightening of these matters, because it is important that there should be alternatives from time to time. Indeed, there is often a need for alternatives. Having said that, I support the orders.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support for the order, and I am glad that there is unanimity within KPMG about the need for the orders.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, for the record, I have not been within KPMG for four years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, neither has the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, I should think. One might say that there is support from KPMG graduates.
	Both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, joined this House in 2000. I am not sure whether they were present for debates on the Government Resource and Accounts Bill, which I had the pleasure of taking through the House. If they had been, they would be aware that during the passage of that Bill there was a very strongly-held view by the Public Accounts Committee in another place that the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be the auditor of a great many more public bodies than the Government had originally proposed.
	Seeking as always to listen to the views of Parliament, since those were the views not particularly of the Government but were held very strongly by the main opposition party and, I believe, by the Liberal Democrat Party, we took the view that we should consider the matter. We asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, to conduct an inquiry into the extent to which the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor-General should be extended. We accepted his recommendations and have been implementing them. These two orders are tidying up implementation orders. We call them "Sharman orders", in fact, in honour of the noble Lord, Lord Sharman.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, would the Minister regard the second order as a "Sharman order"? The special health authorities are not NDPBs, as I understand it. That takes us into different territory from that on which I was trying to argue.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, they are not NDPBs, but they are covered by the recommendations that the noble Lord, Lord Sharman, made. They are the logical extension of the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharman.
	Having given that piece of history, I acknowledge the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It is certainly the case that Wales and, although she did not say so, Scotland have merged the two bodies. It is certainly a sustainable argument that the same should be done in England. In general, the distinction that has been made in England is that the Comptroller and Auditor General audits national bodies and the Audit Commission is responsible for the audits of local bodies. I am not saying that that has to be the case for ever. The best that I can say is that we should bear in mind the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I thought they were well made.
	We should consider the balance of advantage. The Audit Commission has the capacity to audit local National Health Service organisations, just as it has the responsibility of auditing local government. It has the ability to follow up audits with value for money studies, as does the National Audit Office. I believe that local authorities and National Health Service trusts find them valuable. It may be that the local structure of the Audit Commission is more appropriate for that purpose in a larger country such as England.
	It should not be thought that I am setting my face against the suggestions of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I am certainly not a devotee of uniformity, of which the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is rightly suspicious. Let me take on board the points that have been made. Of course, they are wide of the immediate subject matter of the orders before us but I undertake that we will consider them.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Health Service Bodies) Order 2004

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7 June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at seven minutes past nine o'clock.